ASEAN TODAY

FRENCH INDOCHINA

2007-09-18T06:29:00.000-07:00

French Indochina (French: L'Indochine française, Vietnamese: Đông Dương thuộc Pháp) was the part of the French colonial empire in Indochina in southeast Asia, consisting of a federation of four protectorates (Tonkin, Annam, Cambodia and Laos) and one directly-ruled colony (Cochin China). The capital of French Indochina was Hanoi.

French Indochina was formed in October 1887 from Annam, Tonkin, Cochin China (who together form modern Vietnam) and the Kingdom of Cambodia; Laos was added after the Franco-Siamese War of 1893. The federation lasted until 1954. In the four protectorates, the French formally left the local rulers in power, who were the Emperors of Vietnam, Kings of Cambodia, and Kings of Luang Prabang, but in fact gathered all powers in their hands, the local rulers acting only as figureheads. From 1885 to 1895, Phan Dinh Phung led a rebellion against the colonising power.

In the 1930s, Siam engaged France in a series of talks concerning the repatriation of Siamese provinces held by the French. By 1938, France had agreed to repatriate Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, Siam Reap, Siam Pang and the associated provinces (approximately 13) to Siam. Meanwhile, Siam took over control of those areas, in anticipation of the upcoming treaty. Signatories from each country were dispatched to Tokyo to sign the treaty repatriating the lost provinces.

In September 1940, during World War II, the newly created regime of Vichy France, which was a puppet state of Nazi Germany, granted Japan's demands for military access to Tonkin. This allowed Japan better access to China in the Second Sino-Japanese War against the forces of Chiang Kai-shek, but it was also part of Japan's strategy for dominion over the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese kept the French bureaucracy and leadership in place to run French Indochina.

Thailand took this opportunity of weakness to reclaim previously lost territories, resulting in the French-Thai War between October, 1940 and May 9, 1941.

On March 9, 1945, with France liberated, Germany in retreat, and the United States ascendant in the Pacific, Japan decided to take complete control of Vietnam. The Japanese kept power until the news of their government's surrender came though in August, after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.After the war, France had the Franco-Siamese treaty of 1938 nullified and attempted to reassert itself in the region, but came into conflict with the Viet Minh, a coalition of Communist and Vietnamese nationalists under French-educated Ho Chi Minh. During World War II, the United States had supported the Viet Minh in resistance against the Japanese; the group was in control of the country apart from the cities since the French gave way in March 1945. After persuading Emperor Bao Dai to abdicate in his favour, on September 2, 1945 Ho — as president — declared independence for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. But before the end of September, a force of British, French and Indian soldiers, along with captured Japanese troops, restored French control. Bitter fighting ensued in the First Indochina War. In 1950 Ho again declared an independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which was recognized by the fellow Communist governments of China and the Soviet Union.

Indochina in 1886

Indochina in 1954
Fighting lasted until March 1954, when the Viet Minh won the decisive victory against French forces at the grueling Battle of Dien Bien Phu. This led to the partition of Vietnam into the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the North, under Viet Minh control, and the State of Vietnam in the South, which had the support of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The events of 1954 also marked the end of French involvement in the region, and the beginnings of serious US commitment to South Vietnam which led to the Vietnam War.

The partition was agreed to at the Geneva Conference, where the United States of America, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China also settled a number of outstanding disputes relating to the Korean War. It was at this conference that France relinquished any claim to territory in the Indochinese peninsula. Laos and Cambodia also became independent in 1954, but were both drawn into the Vietnam War.

If Indochina were still a union it would have a population of slightly over 100 million and a GDP of over 280 billion, which would make it the most valuable of the former French colonies, eclipsing the traditionally important colonies of Algeria and French West Africa.[

PARIS PEACE ACCORD

2007-09-18T06:25:00.000-07:00

The Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973 by the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV or North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (RVN or South Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries. The intent was to establish peace in Vietnam and an end to the Vietnam Conflict. The accords ended direct U.S. military involvement and temporarily ended the fighting between north and south. The negotiations that led to the accord had begun in 1968 and had been subject to various lengthy delays. The main negotiators of the agreement were United States National Security Advisor Dr. Henry Kissinger and Vietnamese politburo member Le Duc Tho; the two men were awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts, although Le Duc refused to accept it.

Provisions of the accords

The document began with the statement that "the United States and all other countries respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam." The inclusion of this provision was a victory for the communist side of the negotiations by allowing that the war was not a foreign aggression against South Vietnam. The main military and political provisions of the agreement were:

Beginning on 27 January at midnight, Greenwich Mean Time - in Saigon time, 08:00 on 28 January - there would be an in-place ceasefire. North and South Vietnamese forces were to hold their locations. They were permitted to resupply military materiel to the extent necessary to replace items consumed in the course of the truce.
Following the ceasefire, U.S. troops (along with other foreign soldiers) would begin to withdraw, with withdrawal to be complete within sixty days. Simultaneously, U.S. prisoners of war would be released and allowed to return home. The parties to the agreement agreed to assist in repatriating the remains of the dead.
There would be negotiations between the two South Vietnamese parties -- the Republic of Vietnam and the PRG - towards a political settlement that would allow the people of South Vietnam to decide their future in free elections.
Reunification of Vietnam was to be "carried out step by step through peaceful means

LIST OF MILITARY COUPS IN THAILAND

2007-09-18T06:06:00.001-07:00

Coups, attempted coups and constitutions of Thailand, 1932-2006

CONSTITUTION COUP/ REBELLION

1932: 10 December 1932 – 9 May 1946
Coup: 20 June 19332. Boworadet Rebellion: 11 October 19333. Songsuradet Rebellion: 29 January 1939
1946: 9 May 1946 – 8 November 1947
Coup: 8 November 1947
1947 (interim): 9 November 1947 – 23 March 1949
Coup: 1 October 19486. “Grand Palace Coup”: 26 February 1949
1949: 23 March 1949 – 29 November 1951
“Manhattan Coup”: 29 June 195
“Silent Coup”: 29 November 1951
1932 (amended): 8 March 1952 – 20 October 1958
Coup: 16 September 195710. Coup: 20 October 1958
1959: 28 January 1959 – 20 June 1968
1968: 20 June 1968 – 17 November 1971
Coup: 17 November 1971
1972: 15 December 1972 – 7 October 1974
1974: 7 October 1974 – 6 October 1976
Coup: 6 October 1976
1976: 22 October 1976 – 20 October 1977
Coup: 26 March 197714. Coup: 20 October 1977
1977: 9 November 1977 – 22 December 1978
1978: 22 December 1978 – 23 February 1991
Rebellion: 1 April 1981
Coup: 9 September 1985
Coup: 23 February 1991
1991: 1 March 1991 – 9 December 1991
1991: 9 December 1991 – 11 October 1997
1997: 11 October 1997 – 19 September 2006
Coup: 19 September 2006
2006 (interim): 1 October 2006 – present

STRONG MAN ERA IN THAILAND

2007-09-18T06:03:00.000-07:00

The ‘strong man’ era, 1948–1973

The resumption of military dominance over government initiated a succession of authoritarian leaders unchallenged by forces outside the military until 1973. Their power was enhanced by United States patronage and aid. Washington wanted strong anti-communist leaders who would both repress domestic communism (never more than a fringe phenomenon in Thailand in fact) and join in American-led strategies for the containment of Asian communism. From the 1950s United States aid to Thailand was substantial. It enabled much social and economic development, notably in communications, infrastructure and social welfare projects, but it also bolstered military and police power.

Even so the goal of stable government was not necessarily secured. American aid created new opportunities for corruption in Thai government and administration, and stimulated competition for the prizes of power between rival political networks anchored in the military but reaching into business and the bureaucracy. American appeals for some evidence of democracy in Thailand produced, in the short term, only cynical political manipulation, rigged elections and rubber-stamp parliaments from time to time.

After 1948 Phibun resumed many of his former repressive policies. He mounted another anti-Chinese campaign, and also attempted to impose cultural uniformity forcefully on the Malay-Muslims of the far south. The latter resisted the arrival of Thai officials, the introduction of Thai-language education and the substitution of Thai law for customary law. A separatist movement grew which, despite conciliation by later Thai governments, would persist to the present.

Despite the tough image which Phibun once more projected, his power was not in fact secure. He faced several attempted coups from within the military between 1948 and 1951. All were defeated, but at the price of the emergence of two further ‘strong men’ – army commander, subsequently Field Marshal, Sarit Thanarat (whose later spectacular wealth would be grounded in his control of the government lottery) and police chief Phao Siyanon (who would make his fortune from opium trafficking). In 1955 Phibun eased the controls on political activity and promised elections. Possibly he was under American pressure, possibly he hoped to outmanoeuvre his rivals by winning popular endorsement. However his party was accused of massive fraud during the 1957 election. Sarit won popularity by resigning, supposedly in disgust, from Phibun’s government. In September 1957 Sarit staged a coup, driving Phibun and Phao into exile.

In October 1958 Sarit declared martial law, silencing the experiments in open politics since 1955. Sarit justified his authoritarianism in two ways – he argued for a return to Thai traditions of social order, and he accelerated economic development and social modernisation. Under the former banner the monarchy was given renewed prominence.

King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX, 1946–present) attended public ceremonies, toured the provinces and patronised development projects, becoming a personally revered figure. Under the banner of development, Sarit introduced to government a new generation of economically liberal technocrats, encouraged private and foreign investment, launched major rural development programs and rapidly expanded educational facilities.

When Sarit died in December 1963 power transferred peacefully to his close associates Generals Thanom Kittikachorn (who became Prime Minister) and Praphas Charusathian (Deputy Prime Minister). Thanom and Praphas basically maintained Sarit’s style of government and economic policies, which produced GNP growth rates of over 8 per cent per year during the 1960s. At the same time the military’s place in the Thai political landscape seemed to loom larger than ever. United States aid increased sharply because of the Indochina conflicts. From 1964 Thailand provided bases for the United States airforce and committed its own troops to action in Vietnam and Laos. United States aid was also forthcoming to combat a communist insurgency which had taken root amongst alienated tribal groups in the country’s north and northeast.

The era of unquestioned ‘strong man’ rule was drawing to a close, however. Economic development, wider education and better communications were rapidly increasing the numbers of the politically aware. In 1968 Thanom proclaimed a new constitution, and in 1969 an election established a new parliament. The political public was shocked when he reversed direction in 1971, dissolving the parliament and banning political parties once more. By the early 70s several other issues were raising concern. The leaders’ presumed successor, Narong Kittikachorn (Thanom’s son and Praphas’ son-in-law), was not regarded highly inside or outside the military. Thailand’s close involvement with the United States obviously required rethinking as the United States moved to disengage from Vietnam and the region. The OPEC ‘oil shock’ and rising prices sent tremors through the economy.

It was the educated young who precipitated the downfall of the Thanom-Praphas regime. In October 1973 student protests against political repression (inspired to some extent by the Western student radicalism of the era) escalated into massive confrontation with the police on the streets of Bangkok. Popular sympathy for the students increased when police killed or wounded several students. In the first subtle indication of royal political opinion in many years, the King permitted student first-aid stations on royal ground. The demonstrators triumphed when the army withheld its support from Thanom, Praphas and Narong, who fled into exile.

BOWRING TREATY

2007-09-18T05:59:00.000-07:00

The Bowring Treaty is the name given to an agreement signed on April 18, 1855 between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Siam that liberalized foreign trade in Siam.
The Treaty was signed by King Mongkut of Siam and Sir John Bowring, Governor of Hong Kong and Britain's envoy.

A previous treaty had been signed between Siam and the United Kingdom in 1826, and the new treaty elaborated and liberalized trade rules and regulations by creating a new system of imports and exports.

The treaty allowed free trade by foreigners in Bangkok, as foreign trade had previously been subject to heavy royal taxes. The treaty also allowed the establishment of a British consulate in Bangkok and guaranteed its full extraterritorial powers, and allowed Englishmen to own land in Siam.The regulations in short are:

British subjects were placed under consular jurisdiction. Thus, for the first time, Siam granted extraterritoriality to foreign aliens.

British subjects were given the right to trade freely in all seaports, and to reside permanently in Bangkok. They were to be allowed to buy and rent property in the environs of Bangkok; namely, in the area more than four mile from city walls but less than twenty four hours’ journey from the city (calculated at the speed of native boats). British subjects were also to be allowed to travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.

Measurement duties were abolished and import and export duties fixed.
The import duty was fixed at 3 percent for all articles, with two exceptions: opium was to be free of duty, but it had to be sold to the opium farmer; and bullion was to be free of duty.
Articles of export were to be taxed just once, whether the tax was called an inland tax, a transit duty, or an export duty.

British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese without interference from any third person.

The Siamese government reserved the right to prohibit the export of salt, rice, and fish whenever these articles were deemed to be scarce.[Officially a Treaty of Friendship and Commerce, it is nonetheless claimed to be an unequal bilateral contract as Siam was not in a position to negotiate, considering that Britain had demonstrated its military might during the First Opium War with China, thereby discouraging any attempts to prevent Western trade.[Siam's fears were only consolidated by the fact that negotiations that had occurred five years earlier between Sir James Brooke, the White Rajah of Sarawak and British envoy, and Siam's King Jessadabodindra had failed, and had led to Brooke threatening Siam with Britain's Gunboat Policy [4]. The treaty eventually led other foreign powers to sign their own bilateral treaty, based on the rules set by the Bowring Treaty.However, the treaty also ensured that foreign powers would not intervene in Siam's internal affairs and allowed for Siam to remain independent. The Bowring Treaty is now credited for having led to the economic development of Bangkok, as it created a framework in which multilateral trade could operate freely in Southeast Asia, notably between China, Singapore and Siam

REASON WHY SINGAPORE LEFT THE FORMATION OF MALAYSIA

2007-09-18T05:56:00.000-07:00

Merger

On 16 September 1963, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak were formally merged and Malaysia was formed. For Singapore, the merger was thought to benefit the economy by creating a common free market, eliminating trade tariffs, and solving unemployment woes. The British government approved the merger, convinced that Singapore's security would be safeguarded within the much larger Malaysia.

The union was rocky from the start. During the 1963 Singapore state elections, a local branch of UMNO took part in the election despite an earlier UMNO's agreement with the PAP not to participate in the state's politics during Malaysia's formative years. Although UMNO lost all its bids, relations between PAP and UMNO worsened as the PAP, in a tit-for-tat, challenged UMNO candidates in the 1964 federal election as part of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention, winning one seat in Malaysian Parliament.

Racial tension

Racial tensions increased dramatically within a year and was fuelled by Barisan Sosialis's tactics of stirring up communal sentiment to discredit the government of Singapore and the federal government of Malaysia.[citation needed] In particular, the Chinese in Singapore disdained being discriminated against by the federal policies of affirmative action, which granted special privileges to the Malays guaranteed under Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. There were also other financial and economic benefits that were preferentially given to Malays. Lee Kuan Yew and other political leaders began advocating for the fair and equal treatment of all races in Malaysia, with a rallying cry of "Malaysian Malaysia!".

Meanwhile, the Malays in Singapore were being increasingly incited by the federal government's accusations that the PAP was mistreating the Malays. The external political situation was also tense when Indonesian President Sukarno declared a state of Konfrontasi (Confrontation) against Malaysia and initiated military and other actions against the new nation, including the bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore in March 1965 by Indonesian commandos, killing three people. Indonesia also conducted sedition activities to provoke the Malays against the Chinese. Numerous racial riots resulted and curfews were frequently imposed to restore order. The most notorious riots were the 1964 Race Riots that first took place on Prophet Muhammad's birthday on 21 July with twenty three people killed and hundreds injured. During the unrest, the price of food skyrocketed when transport system was disrupted, causing further hardship for the people.

The state and federal governments also had conflicts on the economic front. UMNO leaders feared that the economic dominance of Singapore would inevitably shift political power away from Kuala Lumpur. Despite earlier agreement to establish a common market, Singapore continued to face restrictions when trading with the rest of Malaysia. In retaliation, Singapore refused to provide Sabah and Sarawak the full extent of the loans previously agreed to for the economic development of the two eastern states. The situation escalated to such intensity that talks soon broke down and abusive speeches and writings became rife on both sides. UMNO extremists called for the arrest of Lee Kuan Yew.

Separation

Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew announces the separation to Singaporeans on 9 August 1965.
Seeing no other alternative to avoid further bloodshed, the Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman decided to expel Singapore from the federation. The Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0 in favour of the expulsion on 9 August 1965. On that day, a tearful Lee Kuan Yew announced on a televised press conference that Singapore was a sovereign, independent nation. In a widely remembered quote, he uttered that: "For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I have believed in merger and unity of the two territories." The new state became the Republic of Singapore and Yusof bin Ishak was appointed the first President

BENIGNO AQUINO

2007-09-18T05:45:00.000-07:00

Early life and career

Benigno Aquino was born in Concepcion, Tarlac, to a prosperous family of hacienderos (landlords). His grandfather, Servillano Aquino, was a general in the revolutionary army of Emilio Aguinaldo while his father, Benigno Aquino, Sr. (1894-1947) was a prominent official in the World War II Japanese-organized government of Jose P. Laurel. His father died while Benigno Aquino was in his teens amid rumors of collaboration with the Japanese during the occupation. Aquino was educated in private schools--St. Joseph's College and De La Salle College. He finished high school at San Beda College. Aquino took his tertiary education at the Ateneo de Manila with a degree in Liberal Arts but he did not graduate. At age 17, he was the youngest war correspondent to cover the Korean War for the newspaper The Manila Times of Joaquin "Chino" Roces. Because of his journalistic feats, he received a Philippine Legion of Honor award from President Elpidio Quirino at age 18. At 21, he became a close adviser to then defense secretary Ramon Magsaysay. Ninoy took law at the University of the Philippines, where he became a member of the Upsilon Sigma Phi. He interrupted his studies however to pursue a career in journalism. In early 1954, he was appointed by President Ramon Magsaysay to act as personal emissary to Luis Taruc, leader of the Hukbalahap rebel group. After four months of negotiations, he claimed credit for Taruc's unconditional surrender. He became mayor of Concepcion in 1955 at the age of 22. In the same year he married Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco, and they had 5 children; Ma. Elena, Aurora Corazon, Benigno Aquino III, Victoria Elisa, and TV host Kris Aquino

Political career

Benigno Aquino was no stranger to Philippine politics. He came from a family that had been involved with some of the country's political heavyweights. His grandfather served under President Aguinaldo while his father held office under Presidents Manuel Quezon and Jose P. Laurel. Benigno Aquino became the youngest municipal mayor at age 22, and the nation's youngest vice-governor at 27. He became governor of Tarlac province in 1961 at age 29, then secretary-general of the Liberal Party in 1966. In 1967 he made history by becoming the youngest elected senator in the country's history at age 34. He was the only "survivor" of the Liberal Party who made it to the senate, where he was inevitably singled out by Marcos and his allies as their greatest threat. In 1968, during his first year in the Upper House, Aquino warned that Marcos was on the road to establishing "a garrison state" by "ballooning the armed forces budget", saddling the defense establishment with "overstaying generals" and "militarizing our civilian government offices"--all these caveats were uttered barely four years before martial law.

In myriad ways Aquino bedeviled the Marcos regime, chipping away at its monolithic facade. His most celebrated speech, insolently entitled "A Pantheon for Imelda", was delivered on February 10, 1969, and assailed the first lady's first extravagant project, the P50 million Cultural Center, which he dubbed "a monument to shame". An outraged President Marcos called Aquino "a congenital liar". The First Lady's friends angrily accused Aquino of being "ungallant". These so-called "fiscalization" tactics of Aquino quickly became his trademark in the senate. During his tenure as senator, he was selected by the Philippine Free Press magazine as one of the nation's most outstanding senators. His achievements at such a young age earned him the moniker "Wonder Boy" of Philippine politics.

Aquino was seen as a contender by many for the highest office in the land, the presidency. Surveys during those times showed that he was the number one choice among Filipinos, since President Marcos by law was prohibited to serve another term.

Martial law, hunger strike

It was not until the Plaza Miranda bombing however--on August 21, 1971 (12 years to the day before Ninoy Aquino's own assassination)--that the pattern of direct confrontation between Marcos and Aquino emerged. At 9:15 p.m., at the kick-off rally of the Liberal Party, the candidates had formed a line on a makeshift platform and were raising their hands as the crowd applauded. The band played, a fireworks display drew all eyes, when suddenly there were two loud explosions that obviously were not part of the show. In an instant the stage became a scene of wild carnage. The police later discovered two fragmentation grenades that had been thrown at the stage by "unknown persons". Nine people died, 85 others were wounded, many critically.
Although suspicions pointed to the Nacionalistas (the political party of Marcos), Marcos allies sought to deflect this by insinuating that, perhaps, Aquino might have had a hand in the blast in a bid to eliminate his potential rivals within the party. Later, the Marcos government presented "evidence" of the bombings as well as an alleged threat of a communist insurgency, suggesting that the bombings were the handiwork of the growing New People's Army. Marcos made this a pretext to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, vowed that the killers would be apprehended within 48 hours, and arrested a score of known "Maoists" on general principle. Ironically, the police captured one of the bombers, who was identified as a sergeant of the firearms and explosive section of the Philippine Constabulary, a military arm of the government. According to Aquino, this man was later snatched from police custody by military personnel and the public never heard from him again.

President Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972 and he went on air to broadcast his declaration on midnight of September 23. Aquino was one of the first to be arrested and imprisoned on trumped-up charges of murder, illegal possession of firearms and subversion.On April 4, 1975, Aquino announced that he was going on a hunger strike, a fast to the death to protest the injustices of his military trial. Ten days through his hunger strike, he instructed his lawyers to withdraw all motions he had submitted to the Supreme Court. As weeks went by, he subsisted solely on salt tablets, sodium bicarbonate, amino acids and two glasses of water a day. Even as he grew weaker, suffering from chills and cramps, soldiers forcibly dragged him to the military tribunal's session. His family and hundreds of friends and supporters heard Mass nightly at the Santuario de San Jose in Greenhills, San Juan, praying for his survival. Near the end, Aquino's weight had dropped from 180 to 120 pounds. Aquino nonetheless maintained the ability to walk throughout his ordeal. On May 13, 1975, on the 40th day, his family and several priests and friends, begged him to end his fast, pointing out that even Christ fasted only for 40 days. He acquiesced, confident that he had made a symbolic gesture. But at 10:25 p.m. on November 25, 1977, the government-controlled Military Commission No. 2 found Aquino guilty of all charges and he was sentenced to death by firing squad. However, Aquino and many others believed that Marcos, ever the shrewd strategist, would not let him suffer a death that would surely make Aquino a martyr.

1978 elections, bypass surgery, exile
In 1978, from his prison cell, he was allowed to take part in the elections for Interim Batasang Pambansa (Parliament). Although his friends, former Senators Gerry Roxas and Jovito Salonga preferred to boycott the elections, Aquino urged his supporters to organize and run 21 candidates in Metro Manila. Thus his political party, dubbed Lakas ng Bayan (People's Power), was born. The party's acronym was "LABAN" (the word laban means "fight" in the Filipino language). He was allowed one television interview on Face the Nation (hosted by the infamous Ronnie Nathanielsz) and proved to a startled and impressed populace that imprisonment had neither dulled his rapier-like tongue nor dampened his fighting spirit. Foreign correspondents and diplomats asked what would happen to the LABAN ticket. People agreed with him that his party would win overwhelmingly in an honest election. Not surprisingly, all his candidates lost due to widespread election fraud.

In mid-March 1980, Aquino suffered a heart attack, possibly the result of seven years in prison, mostly in a solitary cell which must have taken a heavy toll on his gregarious personality. He was transported to the Philippine Heart Center where he suffered a second heart attack. The doctors administered ECG and other tests and found that he had a blocked artery. The surgeons were reluctant to do a coronary bypass because of their unwillingness to be involved in a controversy. Additionally, Aquino refused to submit himself to the hands of local doctors, fearing possible Marcos "duplicity", preferring to either go to the United States for the procedure or to return to his cell at Fort Bonifacio and die.

On May 8, 1980, Imelda Marcos made an unannounced visit to Aquino at his hospital room. She asked him if he would like to leave that evening for the U.S., but not before agreeing on two covenants: 1.) That if he leaves, he will return; 2.) While in America, he should not speak out against the Marcos regime. She then ordered General Fabian Ver and Mel Mathay to make necessary arrangements for passports and plane tickets for the Aquino family. Aquino was shoved in a closed van, rushed to his home on Times Street to pack, hustled to the airport and put on a plane bound for the U.S. that same day accompanied by his family.
Aquino was operated on at a hospital in Dallas, Texas. He made a quick recovery, was walking within two weeks and making plans to fly to Damascus, Syria to contact Muslim leaders, which he did five weeks later. When he reiterated that he was returning to the Philippines, he received a surreptitious message from the Marcos government saying that he was now granted an extension of his "medical furlough". Eventually, Aquino decided to renounce his two covenants with Malacañang "because of the dictates of higher national interest". After all, Aquino added, "a pact with the devil is no pact at all".

Aquino spent three years in self-exile, setting up house with Cory and their kids in Newton, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. On fellowship grants from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he worked on the manuscripts of two books and gave a series of lectures in school halls, classrooms and auditoriums. He traveled extensively in the U.S. delivering speeches critical of the Marcos government.

Marcos and his officials, aware of Aquino's growing popularity even in his absence, in turn accused Aquino of being the "Mad Bomber" and allegedly masterminding a rash of bombings that had rocked Metro Manila in 1981 and 1982. Aquino denied that he was advocating a bloody revolution, but warned that radicalized oppositionists were threatening to use violence soon. He urged Marcos to "heed the voice of conscience and moderation", and declared himself willing to lay his own life on the line.

"I have returned"

Throughout his years of expatriation, Aquino was always aware that his life in the U.S. was temporary. He never stopped affirming his eventual return even as he enjoyed American hospitality and a peaceful life with his family on American soil.
In the first quarter of 1983, Aquino was receiving news about the deteriorating political situation in his country combined with the rumored declining health (due to lupus) of President Marcos. He believed that it was expedient for him to speak to Marcos and present to him his rationale for the country's return to democracy, before extremists took over and make such a change impossible. Moreover, his years of absence made his allies worry that the Filipinos may have resigned themselves to Marcos' strongman rule and that without his leadership the centrist opposition would die a natural death.

Aquino decided to go back to the Philippines, fully aware of the dangers that awaited him. Warned that he would either be imprisoned or killed, Aquino answered, "if it's my fate to die by an assassin's bullet, so be it". His family, however, learned from a Philippine Consulate official that there were orders from Ministry of Foreign Affairs not to issue any passports for them. At that time, their visas had expired and their renewal had been denied. They therefore formulated a plan for Ninoy to fly alone--to attract less attention--and the rest of the family to follow him after two weeks. Despite the government's ban on issuing him a passport, Aquino was able to acquire one with the help of Rashid Lucman, a former congressman from Mindanao. It carried an alias, Marcial Bonifacio (Marcial for martial law and Bonifacio for Fort Bonifacio, his erstwhile prison). He eventually obtained a legitimate passport from a sympathizer working in a Philippine consulate. The Marcos government warned all international airlines that they would be denied landing rights and forced to return if they tried to fly Ninoy to the Philippines. Aquino insisted that it was his natural right as a citizen to come back to his homeland, and that no government could prevent him from doing so. He left Logan International Airport on August 13, 1983, took a circuitous route home from Boston, via Los Angeles, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Taipei, before heading towards Manila. He had chosen Taipei as the final stopover when he learned the Philippines had severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan. This made him feel more secure; the Taiwan authorities could pretend they were not aware of his presence. There would also be a couple of Taiwanese friends accompanying him.

It would have been perfectly convenient for the Marcos government if Aquino had stayed out of the local political arena, however Ninoy asserted his willingness to suffer the consequences declaring, "the Filipino is worth dying for." He wished to express an earnest plea for Marcos to step down and seek a peaceful regime change and a return to democratic institutions. Anticipating the worst, during a pre-return interview, he revealed that he would be wearing a bullet-proof vest, but he also said that "it's only good for the body, but for the head there's nothing else we can do". Sensing his own doom, he told the journalists accompanying him on the flight that they "have to be ready with your camera because events will happen very fast...in a matter of 3 or 4 minutes it could be all over...and I may not be able to talk to you again after this... " In his last formal statement he said, " I have returned to join the ranks of those struggling to restore our rights and freedom through nonviolence. I seek no confrontation."

Assassination

On August 21, 1983, while on his way to Manila, Aquino was accompanied by several foreign journalists to ensure his safety or, at the very least, to record events for posterity in case rumors of a planned assassination proved to be true on China Airlines Flight 811. Despite a convoy of security guards (all assigned to him by the Marcos government) and a contingent of 2,000 military and police personnel on the tarmac, Aquino was fatally shot in the head as he was escorted off the airplane. Government investigators claimed that he was gunned down by Rolando Galman, who was immediately shot dead by the aviation security. No one actually identified who pulled the trigger, but Rebecca Quijano, another passenger, testified that she saw a man behind Aquino (on the stairs) point a gun at the back of his head, then there was the sound of a gunshot. A Post-mortem analysis disclosed that Aquino was shot in the back of the head at close range with the bullet exiting at the chin at an angle which supported Quijano's testimony. Even more suspicions were aroused when Quijano described the assassin as wearing a military uniform.

Everyone from the CIA to the Communist Party of the Philippines to First Lady Imelda Marcos was accused of conspiracy. President Marcos was reportedly gravely ill, recovering from kidney transplant when the incident occurred. Theories arose as to who was in charge and who ordered the execution. Some hypothesized that Marcos had a long-standing order for Aquino's murder upon the latter's return.

The Marcos government then ordered two independent bodies, the Fernando Commission and Agrava Fact-Finding Board, to investigate. The men on the tarmac, the rank and file of the military, were found guilty and are currently serving life sentences at National Bilibid Prison. They have recently filed an appeal to have their sentences reduced after 22 years, claiming the assassination was ordered by a Marcos crony and business partner (and Corazon Aquino's estranged cousin), Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., who was eventually cleared by the Aquino family.
Aquino's funeral procession on August 31 lasted from 9 a.m.--with a funeral mass officiated by the Catholic archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, and held at Santo Domingo Church--to 9 p.m., when his body was interred at the Manila Memorial Park. Two million people lined the streets during the procession which was aired by the Church-sponsored Radio Veritas, the only station that covered the procession. The procession reached Rizal Park, where the Philippine flag was brought to half-mast.

Aftermath

The death of Benigno Aquino transformed the Philippine opposition from a small isolated movement to a massive unified crusade, incorporating people from all walks of life. The middle class got involved, the impoverished majority participated, and business leaders whom Marcos had irked during martial law endorsed the campaign--all with the crucial support of the military and the Catholic Church hierarchy. The assassination showed the increasing incapacity of the Marcos regime—Ferdinand was mortally ill when the crime occurred while his cronies mismanaged the country in his absence. It outraged Aquino's supporters that he, if not masterminding it, allowed the assassination to happen and engineered its cover-up. The mass revolt caused by Aquino's demise attracted worldwide media attention and Marcos' American contacts, as well as the Reagan Administration, began distancing themselves. There was global media spotlight to the Philippine crisis, and exposés on Imelda's extravagant lifestyle (most infamously, her thousands of pairs of shoes) and "mining operations", as well as Ferdinand's dictatorial excesses, came into focus.

The assassination thrust Aquino's widow, Corazon "Cory" Aquino, willingly or unwilling, into the public eye. Convinced by leaders of the opposition that she was the person to best Marcos, Cory Aquino went on to campaign tirelessly in the 1986 snap elections which were called by Marcos to pacify rampant public discontent. In 57 days of trying to win people's votes before the February 7, 1986 election, her UNIDO party took to the streets, visiting all but a few of the Philippine provinces. On the campaign trail, Mrs. Aquino was greeted by throngs of people throwing confetti and cheering "Cory! Cory! Cory!". Despite the Marcos-controlled Commission on Election's declaration of a Marcos' victory, the majority of the Filipino people refused to accept the allegedly fraudulent outcome, prompting the People Power revolution that drove Marcos into exile and placed Cory Aquino in the seat of power.

While no Filipino president has ever been assassinated, Benigno Aquino is one of three presidential spouses who have been murdered. Aurora Quezon was killed along with her daughter and son-in-law in a Hukbalahap ambush in 1949, while Alicia Syquia-Quirino was murdered by the Japanese along with three of her children during the Battle of Manila in 1945.

Legacy

Ninoy Aquino on the front face of the 500-peso bill. Printed on the right side of the bill is his classic quote, "The Filipino is worth dying for."

In Aquino's honor, the Manila International Airport where he was assassinated was renamed Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and his image is printed on the 500-peso bill. The Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) 9256, declaring August 21st, the anniversary of his death, as Ninoy Aquino Day, an annual public holiday in the Philippines. Several monuments were built in his honor. Most renowned is the bronze memorial in Makati City near the Philippine Stock Exchange, which today is a venue of endless anti-government rallies and demonstrations.

Although Aquino was recognized as the most prominent and most outspoken critic of the Marcos dictatorship, in the years prior to martial law he was regarded by many as being a representative of the entrenched familial bureaucracy which to this day dominates Philippine politics. While atypically telegenic and uncommonly articulate, he had his share of detractors and was not known to be immune to ambitions and excesses of the ruling political class. However, during his seven years and seven months imprisoned as a political prisoner of Marcos, Aquino read a book entitled Born Again by convicted Watergate conspirator Charles Colson and it inspired him to a religious awakening.

As a result, the remainder of his personal and political life would undertake a distinct spiritual sheen. He emerged as a contemporary counterpart of the great Rizal, who was among the world's earliest proponents of the use of non-violence to combat a repressive regime. Many remained skeptical of Aquino's redirected spiritual focus, but it ultimately had an effect on his wife's political career. While some may question the prominence given Aquino in Philippine history, it was his assassination that was pivotal to the downfall of a despotic ruler and the eventual restoration of democracy in the Philippines.

As part of [REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9492] the Monday nearest August 21 was declared (SECTION 1. Section 26, Chapter 7, Book I of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987) a nationwide special holiday (Ninoy Aquino Day) by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled and approved on July 25, 2007 by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines.[citation needed]
On August 21, 2007, (Aquino’s 24th death anniversary), Enrile stated that the case of the 14 soldiers incarcerated for 24 years now, due to the assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr. should be reviewed for clemency. Enrile paid for the legal services of the soldiers during their trial, and said the soldiers and their family have suffered enough. 15 soldiers of the Aviation Security Command were sentenced to double life imprisonment for the double murder of Aquino and his alleged lone communist gunman, Rolando Galman, and one of them had died. They were all acquitted on December 1985, by the the Sandiganbayan' Manuel Pamaran, but the Sandiganbayan's Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., (promoted to Supreme Court Justice and incumbent 3 termer Judicial and Bar Council regular member) convicted them on Sept. 28, 1990

On the 24th Anniversary of the death of Benigno Aquino, Jr., Cory stated that she had forgiven the 14 incarcerated soldiers for the assassination of her husband but she would not ever nod to appeals for their release. On the other hand, Andres Narvasa stressed that there was no direct evidence linking Ferdinand Marcos and Fabian Ver to the murder. Narvasa further pleaded for the release of the 14 soldiers since they have suffered enough, and warned that Mrs. Aquino is not a vengeful person

TREATY OF PARIS

2007-09-18T05:35:00.000-07:00

The Treaty of Paris of 1898, signed on December 10, 1898, ended the Spanish-American War. American and Spanish delegates met in Paris on October 1, 1898 to produce a treaty that would bring an end to the war after six months of hostilities. The American commission consisted of William R. Day, Sen. Cushman K. Davis, Sen. William P. Frye, Sen. George Gray, and Whitelaw Reid. The Spanish commission included the Spanish diplomats Don Eugenio Montero Rios, Don Buenaventura de Abarzuza, Don Jose de Garnica, Don Wenceslao Ramirez de Villa-Urrutia, and Don Rafael Cerero, as well as a French diplomat, Jules Cambon. The Treaty of Paris provided that Cuba would become independent from Spain but the US congress made sure it would be under US control (Platt Amendment). Specifically, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. Upon Cuba's evacuation by Spain, it was to be occupied by the United States, and the United States would assume and discharge any obligations that under international law could result from the fact of its occupation. The Treaty also assured that Spain would cede to the United States the island of Puerto Rico and other islands then under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, as well as the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.

The major conflict concerned the situation of the Philippines. Spanish commissioners argued that Manila had surrendered after the armistice and therefore the Philippines could not be demanded as a war conquest, but they eventually yielded because they had no other choice, and the U.S. ultimately paid Spain 20 million dollars for possession of the Philippines. The Treaty specified that Spain would cede to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the a specified lineThe controversial treaty was the subject of debate in the US Senate during the winter of 1898-1899, and it was approved on February 6, 1899 by a vote 57 to 27[citation needed], only one vote more than the two-thirds majority required. Only 2 Republicans voted against ratification George Frisbie Hoar of Massachusetts and Eugene Pryor Hale of Maine.

In accordance with the treaty, Spain gave up all rights to Cuba (see Teller Amendment and Platt Amendment), surrendered Puerto Rico and the islands of Guam and the Philippines to the United States, and gave up its possessions in the West Indies. The defeat put an end to the Spanish Empire in America and, for the most part, in the Pacific Ocean, and marked the beginning of an age of United States colonial power

THE BURMESE WAY TO SOCIALISM

2007-09-17T20:56:00.000-07:00

The Burmese Way to Socialism is the name of the ideology of Burmese ruler, Ne Win, who ruled the country from 1962 to 1988. It included mainstream socialist ideals like the nationalisation of industries. However, it also encouraged more unorthodox views. These included a severe isolationism, expulsion of foreigners, discouragement of tourists, closing off of the economy, repression of minorities, and a police state. Ne Win's ideology also encouraged "bona fide" religion to make the people more selfless. In practice this meant encouraging or forcing a state-sanctioned form of Buddhism, although initially it claimed to favour religion generally rather than any specific religion. In practice Ne Win also relied on numerology in his system, but this was not officially part of it.

Opinions are mixed to the resulting effects of the implementation of this ideology. The positives cited include increased domestic stability and keeping Burma from being as entangled in the Cold War struggles that affected other Southeast Asian nations.However critics indicate it greatly increased poverty, isolation,and that it was even "disastrous." Ne Win's later attempt to make the currency base 9 proved purely negative and led the military to revolt. This caused the authoritarian "Burmese Way to Socialism" to be replaced by a new authoritarian system.

AUNG SAN SU KYI

2007-09-17T20:42:00.000-07:00

born 19 June 1945 in Yangon (Rangoon), is a nonviolent pro-democracy activist and leader of the National League for Democracy in Myanmar (Burma), and a noted prisoner of conscience. A Buddhist, Suu Kyi won the Rafto Prize and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and in 1991 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her peaceful and non-violent struggle under a military dictatorship.

PERSONNEL LIFE

Aung San Suu Kyi was born on 19 June 1945. Her father, Aung San, negotiated Burma's independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, and was assassinated by his rivals in the same year. She grew up with her mother, Khin Kyi, and two brothers, Aung San Lin and Aung San U in Rangoon. Aung San Lin drowned in a pool accident when Suu Kyi was eight. Suu Kyi was educated in English Catholic schools for much of her childhood in Burma.

Khin Kyi (Ma Khin Kyi) gained prominence as a political figure in the newly-formed Burmese government. Ma Khin Kyi was appointed as Burmese ambassador to India in 1960, and Aung San Suu Kyi followed her there, graduating from Lady Shri Ram College in New Delhi in 1964She continued her education at St Hugh's College, Oxford, obtaining a B.A. degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics in 1969 and at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in 1985. She also worked for the government of the Union of Myanmar. In 1972, Aung San Suu Kyi married Dr. Michael Aris, a scholar of Tibetan culture, living abroad in Bhutan. The following year she gave birth to her first son, Alexander, in London; and in 1977 she had her second child, Kim, who studied at Georgetown University from January 1991 to February 1991.

Political beginnings

Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Burma in 1988 to take care of her ailing mother. By coincidence, in that year, the long-time leader of the socialist ruling party, General Ne Win, stepped down, leading to mass demonstrations for democratisation on August 8, 1988 (8-8-88, a day seen as favorable), which were violently suppressed. A new military junta took power.
Heavily influenced by Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence, Aung San Suu Kyi entered politics to work for democratisation, helped found the National League for Democracy on 27 September 1988, and was put under house arrest on 20 July 1989. She was offered freedom if she would leave the country, but she refused.
One of her most famous speeches is the "Freedom From Fear" speech, which begins:

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

Detention in Myanmar

In 1990, the military junta called a general election, which the National League for Democracy won decisively. Under normal circumstances, she would have assumed the office of Prime MinisterInstead, the results were nullified, and the military refused to hand over power. This resulted in an international outcry and partly led to Aung San Suu Kyi's winning the Sakharov Prize that year and the Nobel Peace Prize the following year in 1991. Her sons Alexander and Kim accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf. Aung San Suu Kyi used the Nobel Peace Prize's 1.3 million USD prize money to establish a health and education trust for the Burmese people.

The military government released Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest in July 1995 but made it clear that if she left the country to visit her family in the United Kingdom, it would not allow her return. When her husband, Michael Aris, a British citizen, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1997, the Burmese government denied him an entry visa. Aung San Suu Kyi remained in Burma, and never again saw her husband, who died in March 1999. She remains separated from her children, who live in the United KingdomThe junta continually prevented Aung San Suu Kyi from meeting with her party supporters or international visitors. In 1998, academic and journalist Maurizio Giuliano, after holding several meetings with her, was asked to leave the country and not allowed to enter again In September 2000, the junta put her under house arrest again. On 6 May 2002, following secret confidence-building negotiations led by the United Nations, the government released her; a government spokesman said that she was free to move "because we are confident that we can trust each other". Aung San Suu Kyi proclaimed "a new dawn for the country". However on 30 May 2003, a government-sponsored mob attacked her caravan in the northern village of Depayin, murdering and wounding many of her supporters Aung San Suu Kyi fled the scene with the help of her driver, Ko Kyaw Soe Lin, but was arrested upon reaching Ye-U. The government imprisoned her at Insein Prison in Yangon. After she underwent a hysterectomy in September 2003 the government again placed her under house arrest in Yangon.

In March 2004, Razali Ismail, UN special envoy to Myanmar, met with Aung San Suu Kyi. Ismail resigned from his post the following year, partly because he was denied re-entry to Myanmar on several occasions

On 28 May 2004, the United Nations Working Group for Arbitrary Detention rendered an Opinion (No. 9 of 2004) that her deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, as being in contravention of Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, and requested that the authorities in Burma set her free, but the authorities have so far ignored this requestOn 28 November 2005, the National League for Democracy confirmed that Suu Kyi's house arrest would be extended for yet another year. Many Western countries, as well as the United Nations, have expressed their disapproval of this latest extension.

On 20 May 2006, Ibrahim Gambari, UN Undersecretary-General (USG) of Department of Political Affairs, met with Aung San Suu Kyi, the first visit by a foreign official since 2004Suu Kyi's house arrest term was set to expire 27 May 2006, but the Burmese government extended it for another year,[flouting a direct appeal from U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan to Than Shwe. Suu Kyi continues to be imprisoned under the 1975 State Protection Act (Article 10 b), which grants the government the power to imprison persons for up to five years without a trial
On 9 June 2006, Suu Kyi was hospitalised with severe diarrhea and weakness, as reported by a UN representative for National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. Such claims were rejected by Major-General Khin Yi, the national police chief of Myanmar.

On 11 November 2006, USG Gambari, who was undertaking a mission to Myanmar for four days to encourage greater respect for human rights there, met with Suu Kyi. According to Gambari, Suu Kyi seems in good health but she wishes to meet her doctor more regularlyUN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged the Burmese government to release Aung San Suu Kyi, as it released 2,831 prisoners, including 40 political prisoners, on 1 January 2007.On 18 January 2007, the state-run paper The New Light of Myanmar accused Suu Kyi of tax evasion for spending her Nobel Prize money outside of the country. The accusation followed the defeat of a US-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Myanmar as a threat to international security

On 25 May 2007, Myanmar extended Suu Kyi's detention for yet another year which would keep her confined to her residence for a fifth straight year

EMERGENCY PERIOD IN MALAYSIA, 1948

2007-09-17T20:36:00.000-07:00

The Malayan Emergency was a state of emergency declared by the British colonial government of Malaya in 1948 and lifted in 1960, as well as an insurrection and guerrilla war fought between government forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army around the same period. The state of emergency entailed the revocation of many civil rights, the granting of special powers to the police, and other measures aimed at the suppression of left wing political movements, especially the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). The guerrilla war, which is also known as the Malayan War, was part of the ongoing conflict between the MCP and other leftists, and the colonial establishment, starting shortly after the Japanese withdrawal in 1945 and extending at least to the signing of the peace treaty between the communists and the government of Malaya in 1989. The Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA) was the military arm of the MCP; it was formed shortly after the Emergency was declared in 1948.

Origins

The withdrawal of Japan at the end of World War II left the Malayan economy disrupted; problems included unemployment, low wages, and scarce and expensive food. There was considerable labour unrest, and a large number of strikes occurred in 1946 through 1948. At the same time, the British administration was attempting to repair Malaya's war-damaged economy quickly, especially as income from Malaya's tin and rubber industries was important to Britain's own post-war recovery. As a result, strikers were dealt with harshly, by measures including arrests and deportations. The strikers became increasingly militant, and violent incidents occurred. When, on June 16, 1948, three European plantation managers were killed at Sungai Siput, Perak, the British brought into law emergency measures, first in Perak and then, in July, country-wide. Under the measures, the MCP and other leftist parties were outlawed, and the police were given the power to imprison, without trial, communists and those suspected of assisting communists. The MCP, led by Chin Peng, retreated to rural areas, and formed the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), also known as the Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA), or the Malayan People's Liberation Army (MPLA). The MNLA began a guerrilla campaign, targeting mainly the colonial resource extraction industries, which in Malaya were the tin mines and rubber plantations.

The MNLA was partly a re-formation of the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), the MCP-led guerrilla force which had been the principal resistance in Malaya against the Japanese occupation. The British had secretly trained and equipped the MPAJA during the later stages of World War II. The MPAJA was disbanded in December, 1945. Officially, it turned all of its weapons in to the British Military Administration at that time, however thousands of weapons were not returned and were stashed for possible future use. The anti-communists referred to the MNLA as "communist terrorists", which was often abbreviated to "terrs", "Charlie Tango" or "CTs".

Guerrilla war

"Malayan Emergency" was the colonial government's term for the war. The MNLA termed it "Anti-British National Liberation War".[1] Despite the usage of the term "emergency" it was in actuality a full-scale guerrilla war between the MNLA and British, Commonwealth, and Malayan armed forces; some have gone as far as to characterise it as a civil war. The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyds insurers if it had been termed a "war". The MNLA commonly employed guerrilla tactics, sabotaging installations, attacking rubber plantations and destroying transportation and infrastructure.[2]
Support for the MNLA was mainly based on around 500,000 ethnic Chinese then living in Malaya (there were 3.12 million Chinese in total); the ethnic Malay population supported them in smaller numbers. The MNLA raised the support of the Chinese because they were denied the equal right to vote in elections, had no land rights to speak of, and were usually very poor. The MNLA's supply organisation was called "Min Yuen." It had a network of contacts within the general population. Besides supplying material, such as food and weapons, it was also important to the MNLA as an information gatherer.

Jungle service dress of the 1st Battalion Somerset Light Infantry used in the emergency.
The MNLA had its hideouts in the rather inaccessible tropical jungle with limited infrastructure. Most MNLA guerrillas were ethnic Chinese, though there were some Malays, Indonesians and Indians among its members. The MNLA was organized into regiments. The regiments were considerably smaller than a regiment would usually be in a modern national army; the term was largely a geographical designation: each regiment operated in a different area of the country. The regiments had political sections, commissars, instructors and secret service. They also had lectures about Marxism-Leninism, and had political newsletters to be distributed to the locals. MNLA also stipulated that their soldiers had to get official permission for any romantic involvement with local women.

In the early stages of the conflict, the guerrillas envisioned establishing "liberated areas" in which the government forces had been driven out and MNLA control established. They were unsuccessful, however, in establishing any such areas. The initial government strategy was primarily to guard important economic targets such as mines and plantation estates. Subsequently, Director of Operations General Sir Harold Briggs developed an overall strategy known as the Briggs Plan. Its central tenet was that the best way to defeat an insurgency such as the government was facing is to cut the insurgents off from their supporters amongst the population. The Briggs Plan was multi-faceted; however one aspect of it has become particularly well known: this was the forced relocation of some 500,000 rural Malayans including 400,000 Chinese into guarded camps called "New Villages". These villages were newly constructed in most cases, and were surrounded by barbed wire, police posts, and floodlit areas, the purpose of which was both to keep the inhabitants in and the guerrillas out. People resented this at first but some soon became content with the better living standards in the villages. They were given money and ownership of the land they lived on. Removing a population which might be sympathetic to guerrillas was a counter-insurgency technique which the British had used before, notably against the Boer Commandos in the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

In the international scene, the emerging Korean War eclipsed the developing conflict in Malaya.
At the start of the Emergency, the British had a total of 13 infantry battalions, comprising seven partly-formed Gurkha battalions, three British battalions, two battalions of the Royal Malay Regiment and a British Royal Artillery Regiment being utilised as infantry.[3] This force was too small to effectively meet the threat of the "communist terrorists" or "bandits", and more infantry battalions were needed in Malaya.

The British brought in soldiers from units such as the Worcestershire Regiment, Royal Marines and King's African Rifles. Another effort was a re-formation of the Special Air Service as a specialised reconnaissance, raiding and counter-insurgency unit in 1950. The Permanent Secretary of Defence for Malaya, Sir Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, had served in the Chindits in Burma during World War II, which meant that his vast experience in jungle warfare may have proved valuable during this period.[citation needed]

In 1951, some British army units began a "hearts and minds campaign" by giving medical and food aid to Malays and indigenous tribes. At the same time, they put pressure on MNLA by patrolling the jungle. Units such as the SAS, the Royal Marines and Gurkha Brigade drove MNLA guerrillas deeper into the jungle and denied them resources. The MRLA had to extort food from the Sakai and earned their enmity. Many of the captured guerrillas changed sides. In comparison, the MRLA never released any Britons alive.
In the end the conflict involved up to a maximum of 40,000 British and Commonwealth troops against a peak of about 7–8,000 communist guerrillas.

Resolving the Emergency

On October 7, 1951, the MNLA ambushed and killed the British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Gurney. The killing has been described as a major factor in causing the Malayan psyche to roundly reject the MRLA campaign, and also as leading to widespread fear due to the perception that "if even the High Commissioner was no longer safe, there was little hope of protection and safety for the man-in-the-street in Malaya."[4] More recently, MNLA leader Chin Peng has, by contrast, said that the killing had little effect, and that the communists anyway radically altered their strategy that month in their 'October Resolutions'.[citation needed] These responded to the Briggs Plan by reducing unit sizes, increasing jungle farming, and attempting to boost political work.

Gurney's successor, Lieutenant General Gerald Templer was instructed by the British government to push for immediate measures to give ethnic Chinese residents the right to vote. He also pursued the Briggs's Plan, and sped up the formation of a Malayan army. At the same time he made it clear that the emergency itself was the main impediment to accelerating decolonisation. He also instituted financial rewards for detecting guerrillas by any civilians and expanded the intelligence network (Special Branch).

Australia was willing to send troops to help a SEATO ally and the first Australian ground forces, the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR), arrived in 1955.[5] The battalion would later be replaced by 3RAR, which would in turn be replaced by 1RAR. The Royal Australian Air Force contributed No. 1 Squadron (Avro Lincoln bombers) and No. 38 Squadron (C-47 transports), operating out of Singapore, early in the conflict. In 1955, the RAAF constructed Butterworth air base, from which Canberra bombers of No. 2 Squadron (replacing No. 1 Squadron) and Sabres of No. 78 Wing carried out ground attack missions against the guerillas. The Royal Australian Navy destroyers Warramunga and Arunta joined the force in June 1955. Between 1956 and 1960, the aircraft carriers Melbourne and Sydney and destroyers Anzac, Quadrant, Queenborough, Quiberon, Quickmatch, Tobruk, Vampire, Vendetta and Voyager were attached to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve forces for 6-9 months at a time. Several of the destroyers fired on Communist positions in Johor State.

Realising that his conflict has not come to any fruition, Chin Peng sought a referendum with the ruling British government alongside many Malayan officials at Baling in 1955. The meeting was intended to pursue a mutual end to the conflict but the Malayan government representatives, led by Tunku Abdul Rahman, dismissed all of Chin Peng's demands. As a result, the conflict heightened and, in response, New Zealand sent NZSAS soldiers, No. 14 Squadron RNZAF and later No. 75 Squadron RNZAF, and other Commonwealth members also sent troops to aid the British.

With the independence of Malaya under Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman on August 31, 1957, the insurrection lost its rationale as a war of colonial liberation. The last serious resistance from MRLA guerrillas ended with a surrender in the Telok Anson marsh area in 1958. The remaining MRLA forces fled to the Thai border and further east.
On July 31, 1960, the Malayan government declared the Emergency was over, and Chin Peng left south Thailand for Beijing where he was accommodated by the Chinese authorities in the International Liaison Bureau, where many other Southeast Asian Communist Party leaders were housed.

During the conflict security forces killed 6,710 MRLA guerrillas and captured 1,287. Of the total number of guerrillas, 2,702 surrendered during the conflict and about 500 at the end of the conflict. There were 1,346 Malayan troops and 519 British military personnel killed. 2,478 civilians were killed and 810 recorded missing as a result of the conflict.

LEADERSHIP IN MALAYSIA DURING 1969-1971

2007-09-17T20:32:00.000-07:00

After the May 13 Incident in 1969, Tun Abdul Razak faction in UMNO overthrew Tunku Abdul Rahman and imposed a State of Emergency, ruling by decree until 1970. On September 1970, Tun Razak succeeded Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra as the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Tun Razak is also renowned for launching the Malaysian New Economic Policy (MNEP) in 1971. He and the "second generation" of Malay politicians saw the need to tackle vigorously the economic and social disparities which fuelled racial antagonism. The MNEP set two basics goals - to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty, and to reduce and eventually eradicate identification of economic function with race.

Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC)

2007-09-17T20:25:00.000-07:00

The Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie or VOC in old-spelling Dutch, literally "United East Indian Company") was established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock.
It remained an important trading concern for almost two centuries, paying an 18% annual dividend for almost 200 years, until it became bankrupt and was formally dissolved in 1800,[1] its possessions and the debt being taken over by the government of the Batavian Republic. The VOC's territories became the Dutch East Indies and were expanded over the course of the 19th century to include the whole of the Indonesian archipelago, and in the twentieth century would form Indonesia

POLICIES OF ORDE BARU

2007-09-17T20:18:00.000-07:00

The New Order (Indonesian: Orde Baru) is the term coined by former Indonesian President Suharto to characterize his regime as he came to power in 1966. Suharto used this term to contrast his rule with that of his predecessor, Sukarno (dubbed dismissively as the "Old Order," or Orde Lama). The term "New Order" in more recent times has become synonymous with the Suharto years (1966-1998).
Among much of the pro-democracy movement which forced Suharto to resign in the Indonesian 1998 Revolution and then gained power, the term "New Order" has come to be used pejoratively. It is frequently employed by them to describe figures who were either tied to the Suharto regime, or who upheld practices of his authoritarian regime, such as corruption, collusion and nepotism.

Beginnings of the New Order

After being promoted, Suharto was assigned emergency powers on March 11, 1966 through a presidential decree by Sukarno known as the Supersemar. He would then go on to become president in 1967. Suharto would proclaim the New Order, a system of authoritarian rule to reconstruct the country.

Political imprisonment

Under the New Order, surviving members of the Communist Party of Indonesia, as well as those considered sympathizers or fellow travelers, were branded "political detainees" (Indonesian: tahanan politik) commonly appreviated tapol. During and after the civil war, tapol were often given harsh prison sentences without trial, and their property was either seized or destroyed.
Tapol often served sentences including internal exile to penal colonies on desolated islands within the Indonesian archipelago. These included Buru island in the Maluku Islands. Among its more famous prisoners included author and PEN Freedom to Write winner Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who was imprisoned there for alleged membership in a Communist Party literary group, LEKRA. In a book of memoirs (The Mute's Soliloquy), Pramoedya made detailed allegations of forced labour, starvation, torture and other abuses within the colony. ("Tapol Troubles" 1999)
Though the New Order released virtually all surviving tapol by 1979, they continued to be social outcastes afterward. All tapol were required to carry an ID card, stamped "ET" for ex-tapol, and have these ID cards renewed every three years. Many, including Pramoedya, lived under virtual house arrest into the 1990s. Spouses, children, and relatives of tapol have often carried a stigma of guilt by association and commonly face discrimination. Elderly tapol have in more recent times sued in order to win back their rights to vote, and for compensation for their losess

Anti-Chinese laws

For more detail on this topic, see Chinese Indonesian and Anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia
While resentment toward the Chinese Indonesians by Austronesian descended peoples of the archipelago dated back to the Dutch East Indies era, persisting through the Post-Independence era, the events surrounding the 30 September Movement unleashed both widescale violence and a new tide of anti-Chinese legislation throughout the archipelago. Stereotypes of the Chinese as disproportionately affluent and greedy were common throughout the time (both in Indonesia as well as Malaysia), but with the anti-Communist hysteria, the association of the Chinese Indonesians with the People's Republic of China caused them to also be viewed as a communist fifth column.
As a result of this hysteria, Indonesia's hitherto friendly diplomatic relations with mainland China were severed and the Chinese Embassy in Jakarta burnt down by a mob. Several anti-Chinese laws were passed to curtail Chinese culture and civil rights, including laws mandating closure of Chinese language schools, adoption of "Indonesian" sounding names, and severe limits on Buddhist temple construction. The lasting effects of these laws and anti-Chinese sentiment fostered by the Suharto regime was demonstrated in the organization of anti-Chinese pogroms in 1998

Military rule

The liquidatation and banning of the Communist Party eliminated one of the largest political parties in Indonesia. It had placed third in a 1955 election. It was also among the largest Communist Parties in the Comintern, at an estimated 3 million members. Along with the subsequent efforts by Suharto to wrest power from Sukarno by purging loyalists from the parliament, civilian government in Indonesia was effectively put to an end by the civil war.
In the place of civilian rule, a new system of military rule took hold, based on set-aside seats in the Parliament as well as the dwi fungsi (dual function) doctrine of the military, in taking the roles of both soldiers and administrators. The political parties not banned outright were consolidated into a single party, the Party of the Functional Groups (Indonesian: Partai Golongan Karya), more commonly known as Golkar. Though Suharto would allow for the formation of two non-Golkar parties, these were kept weak during his regime.

Rise of Islamism

The purging of two secularist parties, the Nationalists and the Communists, had a notable side effect of having given greater space for the development of Islamism in Indonesia. This included liberal, conservative, and extremist groups practicing Islam in Indonesia. It widely believed by observers of Indonesian history and politics that Suharto's forces whipped up anti-Communist sentiment in part by exploiting conservative Muslims' fears of "godless" Communism to instigate a jihad against them during the civil war.
As for more mainstream groups, conservative Islamic groups (called the "Central Axis") became a prop of the regime for some time after the civil war. Liberal Islamic groups, on the other hand, are believed to have defected during the wave of protests before the Indonesian Revolution of 1998.

Improved ties with the West

The change in regime from Sukarno to Suharto, though brutal, brought a shift in policy that allowed for USAID and other relief agencies to operate within the country. Suharto would open Indonesia's economy by divesting state owned companies, and Western nations in particular were encouraged to invest and take control of many of the mining and construction interests in Indonesia. The result was the alleviation of absolute poverty and famine conditions due to shortfalls in rice supply and Sukarno's reluctance to take Western aid, and stabilisation of the economy.

As a result of his victory in the civil war, Suharto would come to be seen as a pro-Western and anti-Communist strongman regime, similar to that of Augusto Pinochet. An ongoing military and diplomatic relationship between the Indonesia and the Western powers was cemented, leading to American, British, and Australian arms sales and training of military personnel

PATHET LAO

2007-09-17T20:16:00.000-07:00

The Pathet Lao (Laotian ປະເທດລາວ, "Land of Laos") was a communist, nationalist political movement and organization in Laos, formed in the mid 20th century. The group was ultimately successful in assumung political power after a civil war, or insurgent revolution, lasting from the 1950s to 1975. The Pathet Lao were always closely associated with Vietnamese communists. During the civil war, it was effectively organized, equipped and even led by the army of North Vietnam.
The Pathet Lao were the Laotian equivalent of the Viet Minh and the Viet Cong of Vietnam. Eventually, the term was the generic name for Laotian communists. The political movement of the Pathet Lao was called first the Lao People's Party (1955-1972) and later the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (1972-present). After the Pathet Lao militarily won power, they were the government, rather than a nationalist insurgency, and the term was dropped. Unlike the Khmer Rouge, they were an extension of the Vietnamese Communist movement. Key Pathet Lao include Prince Souphanouvong, Kaysone Phomvihane, Phoumi Vongvichit, Nouhak Phoumsavanh and Khamtay Siphandone.
The organization under this name first appeared in 1950, when it was adopted by Lao forces under Prince Souphanouvong, who joined the Viet Minh's revolt against the colonial French authorities in Indochina during the First Indochina War.
In 1953, Pathet Lao fighters accompanied an invasion of Laos from Vietnam led by Viet Minh forces; they established a government at Viengxay in Houaphan province in northeast Laos. The communists began to make incursions into central Laos with the support of the Viet Minh, and a civil war erupted; the Pathet Lao quickly occupied substantial sections of the country.
The 1954 Geneva Conference agreements required the withdrawal of foreign forces, and allowed the Pathet Lao to establish itself as a regime in Laos' two northern provinces. The Viet Minh/North Vietnamese, in spite of the agreement, never really withdrew from the border areas of Laos and the Pathet Lao continued to operate almost as a branch organization of the Viet Minh. Two months after the conference, the Viet Minh/North Vietnam formed the unit Group 100 with headquarters at Ban Nameo. The unit effectively controlled and directed the Pathet Lao movement.
It was formed into an official party, the Lao Patriotic Front (Neo Lao Hak Sat), in 1956. Its stated goal was to wage the communist struggle against capitalism and Western colonialism and imperialism. Unstated was its total subordination to Vietnamese socialism. A coalition was established in 1957 between the monarchists and communists, but it collapsed in 1959, bringing about a resumption of fighting.
In December 1958, North Vietnam took over several towns in Laos raising the Vietnamese flag over them and declaring them to be part of Vietnam. While other parties objected to this, the Pathet Lao did not.
By the late 1950s, North Vietnam had occupied areas of eastern Laos. The area was used as a transit route for men and supplies destined for the insurgency in South Vietnam. In September 1959, North Vietnam formed Group 959 in Laos with the aim of building the Pathet Lao into a stronger counterforce against the Lao Royal government. Group 959 openly supplied, trained and militarily supported the Pathet Lao. The typical strategy during this era was for North Vietnamese regulars to attack first but then send in the Pathet Lao at the end of the battle to claim "victory".
In the 1960s, more attempts at neutrality agreements and coaliition government were attempted but as North Vietnam had no intention of withdrawing from Laos, these agreements all failed. By the middle 1960s, the country had fallen into proxy warfare between pro-American and pro-Vietnamese irregular military groups.
In 1968, the Army of North Vietnam launched a multi-division invasion of Laos. The Pathet Lao were pushed to the side in the conflict and reduced to the role of an auxiliary force to the North Vietnamese army. Unable to match the heavy Soviet and Chinese weapons in addition to the numerical strength of the Vietnamese forces, the Royal Army of Laos took itself out of the conflict after heavy losses.
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, the communists battled the U.S. irregular forces in Laos. The government itself for the most part was effectively powerless and manipulated by both sides. The Pathet Lao held numerous Americans as prisoners of war during and after the Vietnam war (1962-1973).
Shortly after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war, the Pathet Lao and the government of Laos signed a cease-fire agreement, the Vientiane Treaty, in February 1973.
The coalition government envisaged by the treaty did not long outlast it. The Pathet Lao refused to disarm and the North Vietnamese Army did not leave the country. In 1975, the Pathet Lao with the direct open assistance of the North Vietnamese Army began attacking government strongholds. With the fall of the South Vietnamese government in April 1975 in their minds, the non-communist elements of the national government decided that allowing the Pathet Lao to enter power would be better than to have them take it by force. In November 1975, the Pathet Lao took over Laos, abolishing the monarchy and establishing the Lao People's Democratic Republic. Shortly after, the Pathet Lao signed an agreement with Vietnam that allowed Vietnam to station its army in the country and to send political and economic advisors into the country. Vietnam afterward forced Laos to cut any remaining economic ties to its other neighbors. For the next 15 years, the Pathet Lao ran the country almost as a Vietnamese colony.

HO CHI MINH TRIAL

2007-09-17T20:13:00.000-07:00

Elaborate system of mountain and jungle paths and trails used by North Vietnam to infiltrate troops and supplies into South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos during the Vietnam War. The trail was put into operation beginning in 1959, after the North Vietnamese leadership decided to use revolutionary warfare to reunify South with North Vietnam. Accordingly, work was undertaken to connect a series of old trails leading from the panhandle of North Vietnam southward along the upper slopes of the Annamese Cordillera (French: Chaîne Annamitique; Vietnamese: Truong-Son) into eastern Laos and Cambodia and thence into South Vietnam. Starting south of Hanoi in North Vietnam, the main trail veered southwestward to enter Laos, with periodic side branches or exits running east into South Vietnam. The main trail continued southward into eastern Cambodia and then emptied into South Vietnam at points west of Da Lat.
The network of trails and volume of traffic expanded significantly beginning in the 1960s, but it still took more than one month's march to travel from North to South Vietnam using it. Traffic on the trail was little affected by repeated American bombing raids. Efforts were gradually made to improve the trail, which by the late 1960s could accommodate heavy trucks in some sections and was supplying the needs of several hundred thousand regular North Vietnamese troops active in South Vietnam. By 1974, the trail was a well-marked series of jungle roads (some of them paved) and underground support facilities such as hospitals, fuel-storage tanks, and weapons and supply caches. The Ho Chi Minh Trail was the major supply route for the North Vietnamese forces that successfully invaded and overran South Vietnam in 1975.

KHMER ROUGE

2007-09-17T20:11:00.000-07:00

French“Red Khmer”, also called Khmers Rouges, radical communist movement that ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 after winning power through a guerrilla war. It was purportedly set up in 1967 as the armed wing of the Communist Party of Kampuchea.
Cambodia's communist movement originated in the Khmer People's Revolutionary Party, which was formed in 1951 under the auspices of the Viet Minh of Vietnam. The party's largely French-educated Marxist leaders eventually renamed it the Communist Party of Kampuchea. By the late 1950s the party's members were engaged in clandestine activities against the government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, but for many years they made little headway against Sihanouk from their bases in remote jungle and mountain areas, partly because of Sihanouk's own popularity among the peasants whom the communists sought to incite to rebellion.
After a right-wing military coup toppled Sihanouk in 1970, however, the Khmer Rouge entered into a political coalition with him and began attracting increased support in the Cambodian countryside, a trend that was accelerated by the destructive U.S. bombing campaigns over Cambodia in the early 1970s. By this time the Khmer Rouge were also receiving substantial aid from North Vietnam, which had withheld its support during the years of Sihanouk's rule.
In a civil war that continued for nearly five years from 1970, the Khmer Rouge gradually expanded the areas of the Cambodian countryside under their control. Finally, in April 1975, Khmer Rouge forces mounted a victorious attack on the capital city of Phnom Penh and established a national government to rule Cambodia. The military leader of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, became the new government's prime minister. The Khmer Rouge's rule over the next four years was marked by some of the worst excesses of any Marxist government in the 20th century, during which as many as 1.5 million Cambodians died and many of the country's professional and technical class were exterminated.
The Khmer Rouge government was overthrown in 1979 by invading Vietnamese troops, who installed a puppet government propped up by Vietnamese aid and expertise. The Khmer Rouge retreated to remote areas and resumed guerrilla warfare, this time operating from bases near the border with Thailand and obtaining aid from China. In 1982 they formed a fragile coalition (under the nominal leadership of Sihanouk) with two noncommunist Khmer groups opposed to the Vietnamese-backed central government. The Khmer Rouge was the strongest partner in this coalition, which carried on guerrilla warfare until 1991. The Khmer Rouge opposed the United Nations-sponsored peace settlement of 1991 and the multiparty elections in 1993, and they continued guerrilla warfare against the noncommunist coalition government formed after those elections.
Isolated in the remote western provinces of the country and increasingly dependent on gem smuggling for their funding, the Khmer Rouge suffered a series of military defeats and grew weaker from year to year. In 1995 many of their cadres accepted an offer of amnesty from the Cambodian government, and in 1996 one of their leading figures, Ieng Sary, defected along with several thousand guerrillas under his command and signed a peace agreement with the government. The disarray within the organization intensified in 1997, when Pol Pot was arrested by other Khmer Rouge leaders and sentenced to life imprisonment. Pol Pot died in 1998 and soon afterward the surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge defected or were imprisoned.

BRUNEI BEFORE BECOMING SOVEREIGNTY STATE

2007-09-17T19:47:00.000-07:00

Historians believe there was a forerunner to the present Brunei Sultanate, which the Chinese called Po-ni. Chinese and Arabic records indicate that this ancient trading kingdom existed at the mouth of the Brunei River as early as the seventh or eighth century A.D. This early kingdom was apparently conquered by the Sumatran Hindu Empire of Srivijaya in the early ninth century, which later controlled northern Borneo and the Philippines. It was subjugated briefly by the Java-based Majapahit Empire but soon regained its independence and once again rose to prominence.
The Brunei Empire had its golden age from the 15th to the 17th centuries, when its control extended over the entire island of Borneo and north into the Philippines. Brunei was particularly powerful under the fifth sultan, Bolkiah (1473-1521), who was famed for his sea exploits and even briefly captured Manila; and under the ninth sultan, Hassan (1605-19), who fully developed an elaborate Royal Court structure, elements of which remain today.
After Sultan Hassan, Brunei entered a period of decline due to internal battles over royal succession as well as the rising influences of European colonial powers in the region that, among other things, disrupted traditional trading patterns, destroying the economic base of Brunei and many other Southeast Asian sultanates. In 1839, the English adventurer James Brooke arrived in Borneo and helped the Sultan put down a rebellion. As a reward, he became governor and later "Rajah" of Sarawak in northwest Borneo and gradually expanded the territory under his control.
Meanwhile, the British North Borneo Company was expanding its control over territory in northeast Borneo. In 1888, Brunei became a protectorate of the British Government, retaining internal independence but with British control over external affairs. In 1906, Brunei accepted a further measure of British control when executive power was transferred to a British resident, who advised the ruler on all matters except those concerning local custom and religion.
In 1959, a new constitution was written declaring Brunei a self-governing state, while its foreign affairs, security, and defense remained the responsibility of the United Kingdom. An attempt in 1962 to introduce a partially elected legislative body with limited powers was abandoned after the opposition political party, Parti Rakyat Brunei, launched an armed uprising, which the government put down with the help of British forces. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the government also resisted pressures to join neighboring Sabah and Sarawak in the newly formed Malaysia. The Sultan eventually decided that Brunei would remain an independent state.
In 1967, Sultan Omar abdicated in favor of his eldest son, Hassanal Bolkiah, who became the 29th ruler. The former Sultan remained as Defense Minister and assumed the royal title Seri Begawan. In 1970, the national capital, Brunei Town, was renamed Bandar Seri Begawan in his honor. The Seri Begawan died in 1986.
On January 4, 1979, Brunei and the United Kingdom signed a new treaty of friendship and cooperation. On January 1, 1984, Brunei Darussalam became a fully independent state.

REASON BEHIND THE DECLARATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY IN BRUNEI

2007-09-17T19:37:00.000-07:00

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, may work to alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war (therefore, in democratic countries many call this martial law, most with non-critical intent). Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.
In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on civil liberties and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked during an emergency or rights suspended. It is also frequently illegal to modify the emergency law or Constitution during the emergency.
In Brunei, state of emergency was declare due to The Brunei Revolt broke out on December 8, 1962 and was led by Yassin Affandi and his armed rebels. The rebels began co-ordinated attacks on the oil town of Seria, targeting the Shell oil installations and attacks on police stations and government facilities around the protectorate. Contemporary accounts also refer to it as the Brunei Rebellion. This uprising is seen as one of the first stages of the Borneo Confrontation.
Between 1959 and 1962, the United Kingdom, Malaya, Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak were involved in negotiations to form a new Malaysian Federation. However, the Philippines and particularly Indonesia opposed any move towards unification of Sarawak with the new federation. This support was given strength by evidence of widespread anti-Federation sentiment in Sarawak and Brunei itself.
Local opposition and sentiments against the Malaysian Federation plan have often been under-represented in historical writings on the Brunei Revolt and the subsequent Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation. In fact, political forces in Sarawak had long anticipated their own national independence as promised (but later aborted) by the last White Rajah of Sarawak, Charles Vyner Brooke, in 1941.
Left-wing and communist cell groups, which grew rapidly among Sarawak's urban Chinese communities since the 1950s (which later became the nucleus of the anti-Malaysia PARAKU and PGRS guerrilla forces), supported and propagated the unification of all British Borneo territories to form an independent leftist North Kalimantan state, an idea originally proposed by A.M. Azahari, leader of the Brunei People's Party, who had forged links with Sukarno's nationalist movement in Java since the 1940s. The North Kalimantan (or Kalimantan Utara) proposal was seen as a post-decolonization alternative by local opposition against the Malaysian Federation plan. Local opposition throughout the Borneo territories was primarily based on economic, political, historical and cultural differences between the Borneo states and the Malayan peninsula, and an unwillingness to be subjected to peninsular political domination.
Contrary to popular belief, no firm evidence has ever been unearthed to support claims that Sukarno had territorial ambitions over Sarawak (he always held firmly to the 1945 decision which delineated Indonesia's boundaries to territories inherited from the former Dutch-Indies, and this might explain why he eagerly pursued Papua's - but not East Timor's - annexation). More likely was that Sukarno invested hopes for the establishment of a North Kalimantan state aligned to Jakarta's anti-colonial/imperialist geopolitics, in which he found suitable allies.
In effort to thwart any effort to form Malaysia, Indonesia became actively involved in subterfuge operations and later declared war on Malaysia. During this period, Indonesian agents came into contact with local opposition that was against the idea of a federation.
The town of Seria was under rebel control when two Gurkha Rifles companies began to clear the area of rebels. With the airfield sufficiently clear, a Blackburn Beverley transport delivered its cargo of Seaforth Highlanders at Anduki Airfield and met up with 1/2 Gurkha Rifles.[1]
Anduki Airfield today [1] is a grass airstrip with a concrete ramp used almost exclusively by Brunei Shell Petroleum aircraft and helicopters servicing Brunei's extensive offshore petroleum production installations. The Sultan of Brunei and members of the Royal Family sometimes use it in their helicopters when they wish to visit Seria, especially on State occasions[2]. Regarded as strategically important because of its proximity to the oil town of Seria, its history in the Brunei Revolt and the paucity of other Brunei airstrips usable by fixed-wing military aircraft, Anduki and the adjacent highway to Bandar Seri Begawan is one of the first areas to be secured by Gurkha and Brunei Army troops when they deploy on contemporary war exercises.
Several government buildings in the capital which were regarded as key targets by the rebels were occupied and officials working at the time were held hostage. They included the Bruneian ministers who were in the building at the time when the rebels entered the compound and held them as hostages briefly. There were some interesting and rather obvious facts during the revolt, that many people in Bandar seri Begawan reported seeing groups of men buying army uniforms and equipments at the local shops. The rebels were in fact preparing themselves for the revolt. While in the Tutong district, the supporters of the rebellion confirmed that they had engaged with the British in a firefight and some exchanges of fire. They reported that one had killed a Gurkha riflemen patrolling the region around the district. The news of one of the first casualties on the British army since the revolt began
On December 8, from two till five in the morning, shots could be heard near police stations all over Brunei. According to news received from Temburong, the District Officer Pengiran Haji Besar bin Pengiran Haji Kula, a few others from Brunei security forces and a number of civilians were executed for refusing to join in the rebellion.
By five in the morning, TNKU already managed to control Pekan Besar. More news came out that a number of civil servants at Pekan Besar had managed to escape capture. Around an hour later at downtown, Deputy Chief Minister Pengiran Dato Setia Haji Mohd Ali bin Pengiran Dato Setia Haji Muhammad Yusuf bin Pengiran Haji Abdul Rahim was granted audience by the Sultan. After the meeting, the Sultan made a public appearance through radio to condemn TNKU, which was the armed wing of Parti Rakyat Brunei, for treason
The revolt ended after five months when the last rebel leader, Yassin Affandi, being shot in the hip, was captured by British troops in mangrove swamps

ASEAN OVERVIEW

2007-09-13T01:41:00.000-07:00

The ASEAN declaration of 1967 exhorts the association to attain its economic, social and cultural aims through “joint endeavours” and “active collaboration and mutual assistance.” Regarding its political objective of regional peace and stability, however, the Declaration contains no equivalent exhortation. It speaks only of “respect for justice and the rule of law” and “adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.” It makes no impassioned call for the ASEAN member states to take common political positions.

The restraint with which ASEAN’s founders expressed the political aim of their brainchild was understandable. They did not want their intentions to be misunderstood. They did not want ASEAN to be mistaken for a military grouping among political allies-as some of its predecessors had been.

Moreover, at the time of ASEAN’s conception, Southeast Asia was beset by instability aggravated by underdevelopment. The ASEAN pioneer states themselves were just beginning to learn to trust one another, while nursing the hangover of bitter disputes of recent years. The newborn ASEAN was, therefore, presented as a subregional grouping for economic, social and cultural cooperation. But security concerns and political purposes were never far from the ASEAN founders’ intentions.

As a key figure in ASEAN diplomacy, former Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas has pointed out, “The truth is that politics attended ASEAN at its birth. It was the convergence in political outlook among the five original members, their shared convictions on national priority objectives and on how best to secure these objectives in the evolving strategic environment of East Asia which impelled them to form ASEAN.”

ASEAN spent almost the whole first decade of its existence developing and refining the concepts that form the basis of its work and methods of cooperation. In those early years its ministerial and other meetings became occasions for fostering trust and goodwill, for developing the habit of working together informally and openly.

In the process ASEAN leaders realised that their countries could never attain national stability and socioeconomic development if Southeast Asia-afflicted with strife and Cold War rivalry-re-mained in political turmoil. The ASEAN member states strove for resilience, both individually as nations and collectively as a subregional grouping, for they knew the association would not amount to much if external powers regularly intervened in Southeast Asian affairs.

At the First ASEAN Summit in Bali in February 1976, the member countries signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which spelled out the basic principles for their relations with one another and the conduct of the association’s programme for cooperation:
Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;

The right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;
Noninterference in the internal affairs of one another;
Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;
Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
Effective cooperation among themselves.

The treaty envisaged these principles as the foundation of a strong Southeast Asian community. It stated that ASEAN political and security dialogue and cooperation should aim to promote regional peace and stability by enhancing regional resilience. And this resilience shall be achieved by cooperation in all fields among the member countries.

Following these principles and guidelines, Southeast Asia embarked on a journey towards regional solidarity that has been steady and sure. Through political dialogue and confidence building, ASEAN has prevented occasional bilateral tensions from escalating into confrontation among its members. And by 1999 the vision of an ASEAN including all the countries of Southeast Asia as members had been achieved.

Achievements in Political Collaboration

Since 1967 ASEAN has forged major political accords that have contributed greatly to re-gional peace and stability, and to its relations with other countries, regions and organisations.

Foremost among these are:

Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. On 27 November 1971 the foreign ministers of the then five ASEAN members met in Kuala Lumpur and signed the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Declaration. It commits all ASEAN members to “exert efforts to secure the recognition of and respect for Southeast Asia as a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality, free from any manner of interference by outside powers,” and to “make concerted efforts to broaden the areas of cooperation, which would contribute to their strength, solidarity and closer relationship.”

ZOPFAN recognises “the right of every state, large or small, to lead its national existence free from outside interference in its internal affairs as this interference will adversely affect its freedom, independence and integrity.”

Another five years passed before the next major development in political cooperation came about-the First ASEAN Summit in Bali, when the ASEAN leaders signed three major documents: the Declaration of ASEAN Concord, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN Secretariat.

Declaration of ASEAN Concord. Departing from the more circumspect Bangkok Declaration, the Declaration of ASEAN Concord stated for the first time that the member countries would expand political cooperation. It also adopted principles for regional stability and a programme of action for political cooperation. The programme called for holding ASEAN summits among the heads of government; signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia; settling intraregional disputes “by peaceful means as soon as possible”; improving the ASEAN machinery to strengthen political cooperation; studying how to develop judicial cooperation including the possibility of an ASEAN extradition treaty; and strengthening political solidarity by promoting the harmonisation of views, coordinating positions and, where possible and desirable, taking common action.

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia. TAC raised the provisions of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration to the level of a treaty to which other Southeast Asian countries could accede and with which the nonregional countries could associate themselves. The treaty enshrines the following principles: mutual respect for one another’s sovereignty; noninterference in internal affairs; the peaceful settlement of intraregional disputes; and effective cooperation.

The treaty also provides for a code of conduct for the peaceful settlement of disputes. And it mandates the establishment of a high council made up of ministerial representatives from the parties as a dispute-settlement mechanism.

To this day, TAC remains the only indigenous regional diplomatic instrument providing a mechanism and processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. At the ASEAN Summit in Bangkok on 15 December 1995, the leaders of all the ten Southeast ASEAN countries signed the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ). As a key component of ZOPFAN, the SEANWFZ treaty ex-presses ASEAN’s determination to contribute to-wards general and complete nuclear disarmament and the promotion of international peace and security. It also aims to protect the region from environmental pollution and the hazards posed by radio-active waste and other toxic materials.

The SEANWFZ treaty came into force on 27 March 1997. ASEAN is now negotiating with the five nuclear-weapon states on the terms of their accession to the protocol which lays down their commitments under the treaty.

ASEAN has put in place the SEANWFZ Commission and the Executive Committee of the commission to oversee implementation of the treaty’s provisions and ensure compliance with them. The association adopted procedural and financial rules governing the work of the treaty bodies at the seco0nd meeting of the SEANWFZ Commission in Bangkok in July 2000.
Settlement of the Cambodian Conflict. One of the most important chapters in the history of ASEAN diplomacy took place during the Cambodian conflict. The ASEAN-sponsored resolutions at the UN General Assembly, which called for a durable and comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia, received consistent support from the international community.
With Indonesia as interlocutor, ASEAN maintained its dialogue with all parties to the conflict. This eventually led to the Jakarta Informal Meetings at which the four Cambodian factions discussed peace and national reconciliation.

The process proved to be protracted, requiring the help of many states and the United Nations. It extended to the early 1990s, culminating in the 19-nation Paris Conference on Cambodia, which was chaired by France and Indonesia.

On 23 October 1991 the Paris Conference on Cambodia produced the Comprehensive Political Settlement of the Cambodian Conflict. This settlement paved the way for the formation of the Cambodian Supreme National Council, in which four factions participated, and the holding of elections supervised by the United Nations Tran-sitional Authority on Cambodia.
ASEAN 10. Nineteen ninety-nine will be re-membered as the year when the vision of ASEAN’s founders to build an association comprising all the Southeast Asian countries was fully realised. The admission of Cambodia to ASEAN on 30 April 1999 in Ha Noi completed the association’s efforts towards regional cohesion, 32 years after the original five members-Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand-first got together.

Insular and peninsular Southeast Asia and all of mainland Southeast Asia are now joined in one association. The region is no longer divided between ASEAN and non-ASEAN, between mainland and maritime Southeast Asia.

The Dialogue System

At the Second Summit in Kuala Lumpur the ASEAN heads of government agreed that the association’s economic relations with other countries or groups of countries needed to be expanded and intensified.

On that occasion, the ASEAN heads of government met with the Prime Ministers of Australia, Japan and New Zealand, the first time that they had held consultations as a group with the leaders of non-ASEAN countries.

The next year, the first Postministerial Conference took place immediately after the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. This was a gathering among ASEAN and its dialogue partners, which were then Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand and the United States.
Every year since then, the foreign ministers of dialogue countries have met at these postministerial conferences with their ASEAN counterparts. Between these conferences, dialogues are held at various levels and wide-ranging projects are undertaken. These relationships have become models for mutually beneficial relations between North and South as well as for South-South cooperation.

Four more countries have since joined the ASEAN dialogue system: China (1996), India (1996), the Republic of Korea (1991) and Russia (1996). The United Nations Development Programme (1977) is the only dialogue partner that is not a sovereign state.

ASEAN Regional Forum

It was only a matter of time before ASEAN’s regular interaction on economic cooperation with states and multilateral agencies outside Southeast Asia would evolve to include other concerns-primarily regional security.

At the 1992 Singapore Summit, the ASEAN leaders declared that “ASEAN shall move towards a higher plane of political and economic cooperation to secure regional peace and prosperity.”
By this time, the end of the Cold War had altered the configuration of international relations in East Asia. The new environment presented historic opportunities for the relaxation of tensions in the region through multilateral consultations, confidence building, and eventually the prevention of conflict. Thus, in 1994, ASEAN and its dialogue partners decided to create the ASEAN Regional Forum for this purpose. Initially, Forum participants included the ASEAN members, the other Southeast Asian states that were not yet ASEAN members, ASEAN’s then seven dialogue partners, Papua New Guinea, an ASEAN observer, and China and Russia, then still “consultative partners” of ASEAN. India became a participant on becoming a dialogue partner in 1996. Mongolia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were admitted in 1999 and 2000.

As a major venue for carrying out ASEAN’s objectives of regional harmony and stability, ARF adopted two main objectives: first, to foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest and concern and, second, to contribute to efforts towards confidence building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region.
At the Twenty-seventh ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in 1994, the Foreign Ministers agreed: “ARF could become an effective consultative Asia-Pacific Forum for promoting open dialogue on political and security cooperation in the region. In this context, ASEAN should work with its ARF partners to bring about a more predictable and constructive pattern of relations in the Asia Pacific.”

In July 1996 ARF adopted the following criteria for participation:

Commitment. All new participants, as sovereign states, must subscribe to the key goals of ARF and work cooperatively to help achieve them. Before their admission, all new participants should agree to abide by the decisions and statements already made by ARF. All ASEAN members are automatically ARF participants.

Relevance. A state should be admitted only if it can be shown that it has an impact on the peace and security of the “geographic footprint” of key ARF activities (i.e. Northeast and Southeast Asia and Oceania).

Gradual expansion. To ensure the effectiveness of ARF, efforts are made to control the number of participants to a manageable level.

Consultations. All applications for participation should be submitted to the ARF chairman, who will consult all the other ARF participants and ascertain whether a consensus exists for admitting the applicant. Actual decisions on participation would be approved by the ASEAN ministers.

Although ARF is relatively new, it has become an invaluable contributor to the maintenance of harmony and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Its work is complemented by a nonofficial

“Track Two” process led by nongovernment institutes.
Since its inaugural meeting in Bangkok in July 1994, ARF has taken an evolutionary approach extended over three broad stages: the promotion of confidence building among participants; the development of preventive diplomacy; and the elaboration of approaches to conflicts. This approach enables ARF participants to deal constructively with political and security issues that bear on regional peace and stability, including new issues that have emerged as a result of globalisation.

Recent Issues and Concerns

It is in ASEAN’s ability and readiness to resolve political differences affecting its members and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region that the association’s commitment to political co-operation is put to the test. More often than not, that commitment has been affirmed and the ASEAN approach to solving potentially explosive issues vindicated.

These issues include territorial and jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea; self-determination for East Timor; nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia and South Asia; weapons of mass destruction; and the impact of globalisation.

South China Sea. Like many other parts of the world, Southeast Asia faces territorial disputes among its members and nearby states. In these disputes ASEAN has consistently pursued a policy of cooperation in seeking the peaceful settlement of differences.

In 1992, recognising that any conflict in the South China Sea could directly affect peace and stability in the region, ASEAN issued a declaration “urging all parties concerned to exercise restraint in order to create a positive climate for the eventual resolution of all disputes.” ASEAN further “emphasised the necessity to resolve all sovereignty and jurisdictional issues about the South China Sea by peaceful means, without resort to force.”

The Manila Declaration of 1992, which proposed a modus vivendi in the South China Sea, represents one of the most remarkable demonstrations of political solidarity among ASEAN members on strategic issues of common concern.

On the suggestion of ASEAN, ASEAN and China have been working on a Code of Conduct to govern state behaviour in the South China Sea.

The ASEAN-China Senior Officials’ Consultations Working Group on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea met four times this year to negotiate a working draft code of conduct covering principles and norms of state-to-state relations, peaceful settlement of disputes and cooperation.

East Timor. ASEAN supported the implementation of the agreement between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of East Timor and the 5 May 1999 agreements between the United Nations and the Indonesian and Portuguese governments about the modalities for the popular consultations of the East Timorese. The consultations were held on 30 August 1999.

As violence rocked the territory following the referendum, the ASEAN leaders who were in Auckland for the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meet-ing gathered to address the problem. Some of them agreed to contribute, at great expense, to the International Force for East Timor, which was formed upon Indonesia’s invitation. The UN Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) was subsequently set up, with a Filipino general taking over the command of the peacekeeping force. A Thai general has since succeeded him.

Other ASEAN members have been extending humanitarian and other forms of assistance to East Timor.

ASEAN has called on the international community to help East Timor achieve peace, stability and prosperity during its transition to full independence, which would contribute to the stability of Southeast Asia.

Following the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, ASEAN has declared its position that a united, democratic and economically prosperous Indonesia is basic to the maintenance of regional security. In this context, the association emphasised its support for Indonesia’s territorial integrity.

Northeast Asia. At the Seventh ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2000, the participation for the first time of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the ARF process was welcomed-a significant step in the rapid evolution of the situation on the Korean Peninsula and thus in the security environment of the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea’s ARF membership provides additional opportunities for dialogue and exchanges between North Korea and those ARF countries with key roles in the Korean situation.

ASEAN expressed support for the historic summit between the North and South Korean leaders, held in Pyongyang on 13-15 June 2000. It also commended the 15 June North-South Joint Declaration, the first agreement signed at the highest level since the division of the Korean Peninsula in 1945.

Challenges of globalisation. The Seventh ASEAN Regional Forum observed that although the security outlook for the region remains positive, uncertainties and challenges-particularly those posed by globalisation-would increasingly require ARF’s attention.

The Seventh ARF also considered the economic, social and human components of security and the need to promote regional cooperation in dealing with regional security issues. It discussed both the positive effects and the repercussions of globalisation, including greater economic interdependence among nations and the multiplication of security threats like transnational crime. In responding to globalisation, ARF felt it necessary for nations to strengthen their individual and collective capacities to meet the challenges affecting their common security.
ARF has reaffirmed the need for Southeast Asian countries to continue efforts, through dialogue and cooperation at national and international levels, in dealing with the economic, social and political impacts of globalisation so as to ensure sustained economic and social development.

Enlightened Regionalism

ASEAN is widely recognised in the international community as an exemplar of enlightened re-gionalism. But what makes up the nature and measure of its achievements?
It is remarkable that ASEAN has survived for more than three decades because, at the time of its birth, many political observers had predicted that, like previous attempts at regional organisation, it would soon wither in the blast of the complex and hostile regional situation.
Given the wide divergence of views among its founding members, besides the differences in their political and economic systems, ASEAN at the beginning offered little cause for optimism that it would ever attain its goal of regional cooperation. The Southeast Asian security situation was so grim during ASEAN’s early years that the international media often likened the region to the Balkans. Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar of Singapore recalls that the Western press then described the countries in the region as forming a row of dominoes, which were about to fall on one another.

Three decades later, the situation is vastly different. Despite pockets of instability and economic difficulty, the countries of Southeast Asia now make up one of the most stable and most prosperous regions in the developing world.

ASEAN has proved its critics wrong. It is now a vibrant reality, a subregional grouping recognised not only in its own region but also in the world as one of the most successful regional cooperative schemes.

A former ASEAN secretary-general, Narciso G. Reyes of the Philippines, once suggested that to really measure the association’s worth, one should ask what could have happened to South-east Asia without ASEAN. “Southeast Asia minus ASEAN,” Reyes said, “equals greater political instability, more widespread economic deterioration and, almost surely, the ascendancy of expansionist forces that thrive on the weakness, isolation and disunity of others.”

ASEAN’s achievements, however, do not just end in preventing regional disaster. In the political and security sphere, ASEAN has transformed itself from a small subregional organisation into a major voice for peace, justice and moderation in the Asia-Pacific and world affairs. In its 33-year history, ASEAN has maintained peace and stability among its member countries despite territorial disputes and other issues among them. It is today the only subregional organisation in Asia that provides a political forum where Asian countries and the world powers can discuss and consider problems about security, political issues and military concerns.

The relative peace, security and stability that ASEAN has helped maintain in Southeast Asia, as well as in the Asia-Pacific region, have been good for development. They have created a political environment where rapid and sustained economic growth has become possible. Economic development in turn has brought about social progress and human development.

Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi of Malaysia points out: “ASEAN has been successful because its members have a very strong commitment to cooperation. Cooperation for the benefit of all and cooperation for stability and peace of the region. This is a very important hallmark of ASEAN.”

ASEAN, he said, also has “a very strong commitment to pragmatism.” Ideology has never been a problem to ASEAN. It has not allowed theoretical political differences to interfere in its efforts to cooperate for the common good. ASEAN’s leaders and ministers never tire of seeking consensus. They work hard to seek it on issues and programmes that the association develops and carries out.

ASEAN has come to realise that periods of rapid social and economic progress are often accompanied by basic shifts in power relations among states. If not managed well, such realignments could lead to conflict. At the same time, increased economic globalisation, accompanied by structural adjustments of national economies, could create challenges to social order.

With its rapid economic development, ASEAN also faces some issues of resource conservation, including environmental protection. Greater mobility of people, goods and capital also demands more sophisticated management of flows across borders and closer collaboration among ASEAN members. Southeast Asia’s leaders are convinced that ASEAN must continue to deal with all these concerns.

It helps that the nations of the Asia-Pacific region appreciate their prosperity and realise that tensions and armed conflict make bad economics. It helps that the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the recent Asia-Europe Meeting processes-in both of which ASEAN is the core element-are effectively promoting a more constructive and cooperative approach to international relations in the region.

The establishment of ARF also represented a breakthrough in the region’s turbulent history and signified the opening of a new chapter of peace, stability and cooperation for Southeast Asia.
Most important, the expansion of ASEAN to include all ten countries of Southeast Asia represents a watershed for the organisation as well as a new challenge. “It shall pave the way for a new synergy, maximising the cooperation and potential for growth of the entire region,” Viet Nam’s former Foreign Minister and now Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Manh Cam said in 1999. But he cautioned that “[in] the face of a Greater ASEAN, which comprises countries at different levels of economic and technological development and which have different cultures and historical backgrounds, a need emerges on how to keep those differences from slowing down ASEAN’s growth and from creating difficulties for developing countries.”

Outlook

Realising the vision of ASEAN’s founding fathers of an association of all Southeast Asian countries is thus hardly the end of ASEAN history. It is rather a call for a renewed commitment to broader regional solidarity among the peoples of Southeast Asia.

ASEAN has learned to draw strength from unity not only among governments but also among its diverse peoples. “The ASEAN experience and the ASEAN process must reach out to all spectra of our societies,” said former Foreign Minister Prachaub Chaiyasan of Thailand in 1997. “Through ASEAN this region will become a grassroots-supported and close-knit community bound together not only by common interests but by shared values, identity and aspirations among our peoples.”

ASEAN faces the future with confidence. Its strong foundation and remarkable achievements will serve Southeast Asia well as it pursues higher goals in the new millennium.
ASEAN’s leaders have reaffirmed that co-operative peace and shared prosperity should be the association’s basic goals. Towards these goals ASEAN shall remain a driving force in building a more predictable and constructive pattern of relationships among nations in the Asia-Pacific region.

ASEAN will move towards greater economic integration, emphasising sustainable and equitable growth. ASEAN will nourish a caring and cohesive Southeast Asian community, whose strength lies in fostering a common regional identity and a shared vision of the future.

ILLUSTRATIVE ASEAN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

2007-09-13T01:37:00.000-07:00

AEM: ASEAN Economic Ministers
AMM: ASEAN Ministerial Meeting
AFMM: ASEAN Finance Ministers Meeting
SEOM: Senior Economic Officials Meeting
ASC: ASEAN Standing Committee
SOM: Senior Officials Meeting
ASFOM: ASEAN Senior Finance Officials Meeting

*Ministerial meetings in agriculture and forestry, trade, energy, environment, finance, information, investment, labour, law, regional haze, rural development and poverty alleviation, science and technology, social welfare, transnational crime, transportation, tourism, youth, the AIA Council and, the AFTA Council. Supporting these ministerial bodies are 29 committees of senior officials and 122 technical working groups.

The highest decision-making body in ASEAN is the annual meeting of the ASEAN Heads of State and Government. Whenever decided, the ASEAN Summit is preceded by a Joint Ministerial Meeting (JMM) composed of Foreign and Economic Ministers. The ASEAN Standing Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Foreign Minister of the country-in-chair, is mandated to coordinate the work of the Association in between the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM). The ASEAN Chair and Vice Chair are elected based on alphabetical rotation of all ASEAN Member Countries. The ASEAN Secretariat, headed by the Secretary-General of ASEAN, is mandated to “initiate, advise, coordinate, and implement ASEAN activities.” The operational budget of the ASEAN Secretariat is prepared annually and funded through equal contribution of all ASEAN Member Countries. ASEAN is supported by several specialized centres of excellence based on different ASEAN capitals. The Association is also supported by ASEAN Committees in Third Countries composed of Ambassadors of all ASEAN Member Countries based in the capitals of the ASEAN Dialogue Partners and other countries. ASEAN has 11 Dialogue Partners, namely Australia, Canada, China, European Union, India, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Nations Development Programme. In general, ASEAN makes decisions based on consensus and consultations. Other innovative ways of carrying out decisions are also employed as and when necessary and agreed upon.

ASEAN Vision 2020

2007-09-13T01:32:00.000-07:00

ASEAN Vision 2020

We, the Heads of State/Government of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, gather today in Kuala Lumpur to reaffirm our commitment to the aims and purposes of the Association as set forth in the Bangkok Declaration of 8 August 1967, in particular to promote regional cooperation in Southeast Asia in the spirit of equality and partnership and thereby contribute towards peace, progress and prosperity in the region.

We in ASEAN have created a community of Southeast Asian nations at peace with one another and at peace with the world, rapidly achieving prosperity for our peoples and steadily improving their lives. Our rich diversity has provided the strength and inspiration to us to help one another foster a strong sense of community.

We are now a market of around 500 million people with a combined gross domestic product of US$600 billion. We have achieved considerable results in the economic field, such as high economic growth, stability and significant poverty alleviation over the past few years. Members have enjoyed substantial trade and investment flows from significant liberalisation measures.
We resolve to build upon these achievements.

Now, as we approach the 21st century, thirty years after the birth of ASEAN, we gather to chart a vision for ASEAN on the basis of today's realities and prospects in the decades leading to the Year 2020.

That vision is of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies.

A Concert of Southeast Asian Nations

We envision the ASEAN region to be, in 2020, in full reality, a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality, as envisaged in the Kuala Lumpur Declaration of 1971.
ASEAN shall have, by the year 2020, established a peaceful and stable Southeast Asia where each nation is at peace with itself and where the causes for conflict have been eliminated, through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law and through the strengthening of national and regional resilience.

We envision a Southeast Asia where territorial and other disputes are resolved by peaceful means.

We envision the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia functioning fully as a binding code of conduct for our governments and peoples, to which other states with interests in the region adhere.

We envision a Southeast Asia free from nuclear weapons, with all the Nuclear Weapon States committed to the purposes of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty through their adherence to its Protocol. We also envision our region free from all other weapons of mass destruction.

We envision our rich human and natural resources contributing to our development and shared prosperity.

We envision the ASEAN Regional Forum as an established means for confidence-building and preventive diplomacy and for promoting conflict-resolution.

We envision a Southeast Asia where our mountains, rivers and seas no longer divide us but link us together in friendship, cooperation and commerce.

We see ASEAN as an effective force for peace, justice and moderation in the Asia-Pacific and in the world.

A Partnership in Dynamic Development

We resolve to chart a new direction towards the year 2020 called, ASEAN 2020 : Partnership in Dynamic Development which will forge closer economic integration within ASEAN.

We reiterate our resolve to enhance ASEAN economic cooperation through economic development strategies, which are in line with the aspiration of our respective peoples, which put emphasis on sustainable and equitable growth, and enhance national as well as regional resilience.

We pledge to sustain ASEAN's high economic performance by building upon the foundation of our existing cooperation efforts, consolidating our achievements, expanding our collective efforts and enhancing mutual assistance.

We commit ourselves to moving towards closer cohesion and economic integration, narrowing the gap in the level of development among Member Countries, ensuring that the multilateral trading system remains fair and open, and achieving global competitiveness.

We will create a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN Economic Region in which there is a free flow of goods, services and investments, a freer flow of capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities.

We resolve, inter-alia, to undertake the following:

maintain regional macroeconomic and financial stability by promoting closer consultations in macroeconomic and financial policies.
advance economic integration and cooperation by undertaking the following general strategies: fully implement the ASEAN Free Trade Area and accelerate liberalization of trade in services, realise the ASEAN Investment Area by 2010 and free flow of investments by 2020;
intensify and expand sub-regional cooperation in existing and new sub-regional growth areas;
further consolidate and expand extra-ASEAN regional linkages for mutual benefit cooperate to strengthen the multilateral trading system, and reinforce the role of the business sector as the engine of growth.
promote a modern and competitive small and medium enterprises (SME) sector in ASEAN which will contribute to the industrial development and efficiency of the region.
accelerate the free flow of professional and other services in the region.
promote financial sector liberalisation and closer cooperation in money and capital market, tax, insurance and customs matters as well as closer consultations in macroeconomic and financial policies.
accelerate the development of science and technology including information technology by establishing a regional information technology network and centers of excellence for dissemination of and easy access to data and information.
establish interconnecting arrangements in the field of energy and utilities for electricity, natural gas and water within ASEAN through the ASEAN Power Grid and a Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline and Water Pipeline, and promote cooperation in energy efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of new and renewable energy resources.
enhance food security and international competitiveness of food, agricultural and forest products, to make ASEAN a leading producer of these products, and promote the forestry sector as a model in forest management, conservation and sustainable development.
meet the ever increasing demand for improved infrastructure and communications by developing an integrated and harmonized trans-ASEAN transportation network and harnessing technology advances in telecommunication and information technology, especially in linking the planned information highways/multimedia corridors in ASEAN, promoting open sky policy, developing multi-modal transport, facilitating goods in transit and integrating telecommunications networks through greater interconnectivity, coordination of frequencies and mutual recognition of equipment-type approval procedures.
enhance human resource development in all sectors of the economy through quality education, upgrading of skills and capabilities and training.
work towards a world class standards and conformance system that will provide a harmonised system to facilitate the free flow of ASEAN trade while meeting health, safety and environmental needs.
use the ASEAN Foundation as one of the instruments to address issues of unequal economic development, poverty and socioeconomic disparities.
promote an ASEAN customs partnership for world class standards and excellence in efficiency, professionalism and service, and uniformity through harmonised procedures, to promote trade and investment and to protect the health and well-being of the ASEAN community,
enhance intra-ASEAN trade and investment in the mineral sector and to contribute towards a technologically competent ASEAN through closer networking and sharing of information on mineral and geosciences as well as to enhance cooperation and partnership with dialogue partners to facilitate the development and transfer of technology in the mineral sector, particularly in the downstream research and the geosciences and to develop appropriate mechanism for these.

A Community of Caring Societies

We envision the entire Southeast Asia to be, by 2020, an ASEAN community conscious of its ties of history, aware of its cultural heritage and bound by a common regional identity.

We see vibrant and open ASEAN societies consistent with their respective national identities, where all people enjoy equitable access to opportunities for total human development regardless of gender, race, religion, language, or social and cultural background.

We envision a socially cohesive and caring ASEAN where hunger, malnutrition, deprivation and poverty are no longer basic problems, where strong families as the basic units of society tend to their members particularly the children, youth, women and elderly; and where the civil society is empowered and gives special attention to the disadvantaged, disabled and marginalized and where social justice and the rule of law reign.

We see well before 2020 a Southeast Asia free of illicit drugs, free of their production, processing, trafficking and use.

We envision a technologically competitive ASEAN competent in strategic and enabling technologies, with an adequate pool of technologically qualified and trained manpower, and strong networks of scientific and technological institutions and centers of excellence.

We envision a clean and green ASEAN with fully established mechanisms for sustainable development to ensure the protection of the region's environment, the sustainability of its natural resources, and the high quality of life of its peoples.

We envision the evolution in Southeast Asia of agreed rules of behaviour and cooperative measures to deal with problems that can be met only on a regional scale, including environmental pollution and degradation, drug trafficking, trafficking in women and children, and other transnational crimes.

We envision our nations being governed with the consent and greater participation of the people with its focus on the welfare and dignity of the human person and the good of the community.

We resolve to develop and strengthen ASEAN's institutions and mechanisms to enable ASEAN to realize the vision and respond to the challenges of the coming century. We also see the need for a strengthened ASEAN Secretariat with an enhanced role to support the realization of our vision.

An Outward-Looking ASEAN

We see an outward-looking ASEAN playing a pivotal role in the international fora, and advancing ASEAN's common interests.

We envision ASEAN having an intensified relationship with its Dialogue Partners and other regional organisations based on equal partnership and mutual respect.

Conclusion

We pledge to our peoples our determination and commitment to bringing this ASEAN Vision for the Year 2020 into reality.

Kuala Lumpur

15 December 1997

ASEAN TRUE STORY

2007-09-13T01:26:00.000-07:00

ESTABLISHMENT

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by the five original Member Countries, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined on 8 January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999.

The ASEAN region has a population of about 500 million, a total area of 4.5 million square kilometers, a combined gross domestic product of almost US$ 700 billion, and a total trade of about US$ 850 billion.

OBJECTIVES

The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: (1) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and (2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies.

In 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be established comprising three pillars, namely, ASEAN Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

ASEAN Member Countries have adopted the following fundamental principles in their relations with one another, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC):
mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations;the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;renunciation of the threat or use of force; and effective cooperation among themselves.

ASEAN SECURITY COMMUNITY

Through political dialogue and confidence building, no tension has escalated into armed confrontation among ASEAN Member Countries since its establishment more than three decades ago.

To build on what has been constructed over the years in the field of political and security cooperation, the ASEAN Leaders have agreed to establish the ASEAN Security Community (ASC). The ASC shall aim to ensure that countries in the region live at peace with one another and with the world in a just, democratic and harmonious environment.

The members of the Community pledge to rely exclusively on peaceful processes in the settlement of intra-regional differences and regard their security as fundamentally linked to one another and bound by geographic location, common vision and objectives. It has the following components: political development; shaping and sharing of norms; conflict prevention; conflict resolution; post-conflict peace building; and implementing mechanisms. It will be built on the strong foundation of ASEAN processes, principles, agreements, and structures, which evolved over the years and are contained in the following major political agreements:

ASEAN Declaration, Bangkok, 8 August 1967;
Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration, Kuala Lumpur, 27 November 1971;
Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Bali, 24 February 1976;
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Bali, 24 February 1976;
ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, Manila, 22 July 1992;
Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, Bangkok, 15 December 1997;
ASEAN Vision 2020, Kuala Lumpur, 15 December 1997; and
Declaration of ASEAN Concord II, Bali, 7 October 2003.
In recognition of security interdependence in the Asia-Pacific region, ASEAN established the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994. The ARF’s agenda aims to evolve in three broad stages, namely the promotion of confidence building, development of preventive diplomacy and elaboration of approaches to conflicts.

The present participants in the ARF include: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Democratic Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea (ROK), Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, the United States, and Viet Nam.

The ARF discusses major regional security issues in the region, including the relationship amongst the major powers, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, transnational crime, South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula, among others.

ASEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The ASEAN Economic Community shall be the end-goal of economic integration measures as outlined in the ASEAN Vision 2020. Its goal is to create a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN economic region in which there is a free flow of goods, services, investment and a freer flow of capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities in year 2020.

The ASEAN Economic Community shall establish ASEAN as a single market and production base, turning the diversity that characterises the region into opportunities for business complementation and making the ASEAN a more dynamic and stronger segment of the global supply chain. ASEAN’s strategy shall consist of the integration of ASEAN and enhancing ASEAN’s economic competitiveness.

In moving towards the ASEAN Economic Community, ASEAN has agreed on the following:
institute new mechanisms and measures to strengthen the implementation of its existing economic initiatives including the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) and ASEAN Investment Area (AIA);
accelerate regional integration in the following priority sectors by 2010: air travel, agro-based products, automotives, e-commerce, electronics, fisheries, healthcare, rubber-based products, textiles and apparels, tourism, and wood-based products.
facilitate movement of business persons, skilled labour and talents; and
strengthen the institutional mechanisms of ASEAN, including the improvement of the existing ASEAN Dispute Settlement Mechanism to ensure expeditious and legally-binding resolution of any economic disputes.
Launched in 1992, the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is now in place. It aims to promote the region’s competitive advantage as a single production unit. The elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers among Member Countries is expected to promote greater economic efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness.

As of 1 January 2005, tariffs on almost 99 percent of the products in the Inclusion List of the ASEAN-6 (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) have been reduced to no more than 5 percent. More than 60 percent of these products have zero tariffs. The average tariff for ASEAN-6 has been brought down from more than 12 percent when AFTA started to 2 percent today. For the newer Member Countries, namely, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Viet Nam (CLMV), tariffs on about 81 percent of their Inclusion List have been brought down to within the 0-5 percent range.

Other major integration-related economic activities of ASEAN include the following:
Roadmap for Financial and Monetary Integration of ASEAN in four areas, namely, capital market development, capital account liberalisation, liberalisation of financial services and currency cooperation;
trans-ASEAN transportation network consisting of major inter-state highway and railway networks, including the Singapore to Kunming Rail-Link, principal ports, and sea lanes for maritime traffic, inland waterway transport, and major civil aviation links;
Roadmap for Integration of Air Travel Sector;
interoperability and interconnectivity of national telecommunications equipment and services, including the ASEAN Telecommunications Regulators Council Sectoral Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ATRC-MRA) on Conformity Assessment for Telecommunications Equipment;
trans-ASEAN energy networks, which consist of the ASEAN Power Grid and the Trans-ASEAN Gas Pipeline Projects;
Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) focusing on infrastructure, human resource development, information and communications technology, and regional economic integration primarily in the CLMV countries;
Visit ASEAN Campaign and the private sector-led ASEAN Hip-Hop Pass to promote intra-ASEAN tourism; and
Agreement on the ASEAN Food Security Reserve.
ASEAN SOCIO-CULTURAL COMMUNITY

The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, in consonance with the goal set by ASEAN Vision 2020, envisages a Southeast Asia bonded together in partnership as a community of caring societies and founded on a common regional identity.

The Community shall foster cooperation in social development aimed at raising the standard of living of disadvantaged groups and the rural population, and shall seek the active involvement of all sectors of society, in particular women, youth, and local communities.

ASEAN shall ensure that its work force shall be prepared for, and benefit from, economic integration by investing more resources for basic and higher education, training, science and technology development, job creation, and social protection.

ASEAN shall further intensify cooperation in the area of public health, including in the prevention and control of infectious and communicable diseases.

The development and enhancement of human resources is a key strategy for employment generation, alleviating poverty and socio-economic disparities, and ensuring economic growth with equity.

Among the on-going activities of ASEAN in this area include the following:
ASEAN Work Programme for Social Welfare, Family, and Population;
ASEAN Work Programme on HIV/AIDS;
ASEAN Work Programme on Community-Based Care for the Elderly;
ASEAN Occupational Safety and Health Network;
ASEAN Work Programme on Preparing ASEAN Youth for Sustainable Employment and Other Challenges of Globalisation;
ASEAN University Network (AUN) promoting collaboration among seventeen member universities ASEAN;
ASEAN Students Exchange Programme, Youth Cultural Forum, and the ASEAN Young Speakers Forum;
The Annual ASEAN Culture Week, ASEAN Youth Camp and ASEAN Quiz;
ASEAN Media Exchange Programme; and
Framework for Environmentally Sustainable Cities (ESC) and ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.

EXTERNAL RELATIONS

The ASEAN Vision 2020 affirmed an outward-looking ASEAN playing a pivotal role in the international community and advancing ASEAN’s common interests.

Building on the Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation of 1999, cooperation between the Southeast and Northeast Asian countries has accelerated with the holding of an annual summit among the leaders of ASEAN, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK) within the ASEAN Plus Three process.

ASEAN Plus Three relations continue to expand and deepen in the areas of security dialogue and cooperation, transnational crime, trade and investment, environment, finance and monetary, agriculture and forestry, energy, tourism, health, labour, culture and the arts, science and technology, information and communication technology, social welfare and development, youth, and rural development and poverty eradication. There are now thirteen ministerial-level meetings under the ASEAN Plus Three process.

Bilateral trading arrangements have been or are being forged between ASEAN Member Countries and China, Japan, and the ROK. These arrangements will serve as the building blocks of an East Asian Free Trade Area as a long term goal.

ASEAN continues to develop cooperative relations with its Dialogue Partners, namely, Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the ROK, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Nations Development Programme. ASEAN also promotes cooperation with Pakistan in some areas of mutual interest.

Consistent with its resolve to enhance cooperation with other developing regions, ASEAN maintains contact with other inter-governmental organisations, namely, the Economic Cooperation Organisation, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Rio Group, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the South Pacific Forum, and through the recently established Asian-African Sub-Regional Organisation Conference.

Most ASEAN Member Countries also participate actively in the activities of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), and the East Asia-Latin America Forum (EALAF).

STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS

The highest decision-making organ of ASEAN is the Meeting of the ASEAN Heads of State and Government. The ASEAN Summit is convened every year. The ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (Foreign Ministers) is held annually.

Ministerial meetings on the following sectors are also held regularly: agriculture and forestry, economics (trade), energy, environment, finance, health, information, investment, labour, law, regional haze, rural development and poverty alleviation, science and technology, social welfare, telecommunications, transnational crime, transportation, tourism, youth. Supporting these ministerial bodies are committees of senior officials, technical working groups and task forces.

To support the conduct of ASEAN’s external relations, ASEAN has established committees composed of heads of diplomatic missions in the following capitals: Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Canberra, Geneva, Islamabad, London, Moscow, New Delhi, New York, Ottawa, Paris, Riyadh, Seoul, Tokyo, Washington D.C. and Wellington. The Secretary-General of ASEAN is appointed on merit and accorded ministerial status. The Secretary-General of ASEAN, who has a five-year term, is mandated to initiate, advise, coordinate, and implement ASEAN activities. The members of the professional staff of the ASEAN Secretariat are appointed on the principle of open recruitment and region-wide competition.

ASEAN has several specialized bodies and arrangements promoting inter-governmental cooperation in various fields including the following: ASEAN Agricultural Development Planning Centre, ASEAN-EC Management Centre, ASEAN Centre for Energy, ASEAN Earthquake Information Centre, ASEAN Foundation, ASEAN Poultry Research and Training Centre, ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, ASEAN Rural Youth Development Centre, ASEAN Specialized Meteorological Centre, ASEAN Timber Technology Centre, ASEAN Tourism Information Centre, and the ASEAN University Network.

In addition, ASEAN promotes dialogue and consultations with professional and business organisations with related aims and purposes, such as the ASEAN-Chambers of Commerce and Industry, ASEAN Business Forum, ASEAN Tourism Association, ASEAN Council on Petroleum, ASEAN Ports Association, Federation of ASEAN Shipowners, ASEAN Confederation of Employers, ASEAN Fisheries Federation, ASEAN Vegetable Oils Club, ASEAN Intellectual Property Association, and the ASEAN-Institutes for Strategic and International Studies. Furthermore, there are 58 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which have formal affiliations with ASEAN.

Malaysia

2007-09-13T01:09:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

Using the U.S flag as a model, the 14 red and white stripes represent the 14 states of the country. The gold crescent and star are symbols of Islam, and the blue field represents the unity of the people.The flag of Malaysia, or known as the Jalur Gemilang ("Stripes of Glory") comprises a field of 14 alternating red and white stripes and a blue canton bearing a crescent and a 14-point star (called Bintang Persekutuan or Federal Star). The 14 stripes, as well as the 14 points of the star, represent the original fourteen states of Malaysia. After the expulsion of Singapore, the 14th point and stripe are understood as the federal government. The crescent and the star represents Islam, the official religion. The blue canton symbolizes the unity of the Malaysian people, the yellow of the crescent and the star is the royal colour, representing the rulers of the states, red symbolises courage and white symbolises purity.
The flag of Malaysia is inspired by the flag of the United States, and displays the star and crescent, a traditional symbol of Islam. The Jalur Gemilang and the Stars and Stripes both share a field of alternating red and white stripes and a blue canton. (The British East India Company flag, too, had a similar design and might be the origin of this style of flag.) The Federal Star, which is similar in concept of Australia's Commonwealth Star, is also used on the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) flag, the Royal Malaysian Air Force roundel, and the United Malayan Banking Association (UMBC) logo.

Modern History

During the late 18th and 19th centuries, Great Britain established colonies and protectorates in the area of current Malaysia; these were occupied by Japan from 1942 to 1945. In 1948, the British-ruled territories on the Malay Peninsula formed the Federation of Malaya, which became independent in 1957.

Malaysia was formed in 1963 when the former British colonies of Singapore and the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak on the northern coast of Borneo joined the Federation. The first several years of the country's history were marred by Indonesian efforts to control Malaysia, Philippine claims to Sabah, and Singapore's secession from the Federation in 1965. During the 22-year term of Prime Minister MAHATHIR bin Mohamad (1981-2003), Malaysia was successful in diversifying its economy from dependence on exports of raw materials, to expansion in manufacturing, services, and tourism.

Malaysia’s Immediate Neighbors

1) Singapore
2) Thailand
3) Indonesia
4) Brunei

Background Information :

Head of State
:DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agung Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Ibni Almarhum Tuanku Syed Putra Jamalullail

Head of Government
:Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Capital
:Kuala Lumpur

Land area
:330,257 sq.km

Population
:23,671thousand (2004).

Language
:Melayu, English, Chinese, Tamil

Religion
:Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity

Member of
:ASEAN, ADB, APEC, ASEM, D-8, EBRD, ECOSOP, ESCAP, FAO, G-15, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, IDA, IDB, ILO, EALAP

Currency
:Malaysian Ringgit

GDP
:US$ 103,737 million (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Electronic & electrical goods, textiles, clothing & footwear, chemicals, petroleum, wood and metal products and rubber

Major Exports
:Electronic & electric machinery, petroleum & LNG, textiles, clothing & footwear, palm oil, sawn timber

Major Imports
:Manufacturing inputs, machinery & transport equipment, metal product

Republic of Indonesia

2007-09-13T01:07:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The Indonesia flag was officially adopted on August 17, 1945. The flag is modeled after the 13th century banner of the Indonesian Empire; the red stripe represents the body, while the white stripe represents the soul.

The national flag of Indonesia which is known as "Sang Merah Putih" in Indonesian is based on the flag of the Majapahit empire, back in the 13th century. The flag itself was introduced and hoisted in public at the Indonesian Independence Day ceremony, on August 17, 1945. For over 60 years, the design of the flag has not changed, as well as the ratio of the colors.
The design of the flag is a simple two-colored flag with two equal horizontal bands, red (top) and white (bottom) with 2:3 ratio consecutively. The flag is similar to the flag of Poland, and is identical to the flag of Monaco (except for the ratio). Red represents the bravery, while white represents the spiritual. Moreover, there is a song titled "Merah Putih" (Red and White) and is one of the national songs.
Its colors are derived from the banner of the 13th century Majapahit Empire. Later, these colors were revived by students and then nationalists in the early 20th century as an expression of nationalism against the Dutch. The red-white flag was flown for the first time in Java in 1928. Under Dutch rule, the flag was prohibited. It was adopted as the national flag on August 17, 1945, when independence was declared and is still being used until now.

Modern History

The Dutch colonial presence in Indonesia existed in various forms for over three hundred years until the Japanese occupation during World War II.[12][13] During the war, Sukarno, a popular leader of the Indonesian Nationalist Party, cooperated with the occupying Japanese with the intention of strengthening the independence movement. On 17 August 1945, two days after the Japanese surrender, Sukarno unilaterally declared Indonesian independence. Sukarno was declared the first president and Muhammad Hatta the vice-president. Over the next four years, a bitter armed conflict was fought as the Netherlands tried to win back its colony; in the face of international pressure, the Netherlands recognised Indonesian independence in 1949.
Sukarno's presidency relied on balancing the often opposing forces of the Military, Islam and Communism. Increasing tensions, however, between the powerful Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and the Military culminated in an abortive coup on 30 September 1965, during which six top-ranking generals were murdered in contentious circumstances. A quick counter-coup led by Major General Suharto resulted in a violent anti-communist purge centered mainly in Java and Bali. Hundreds of thousands were killed the exact figure is uncertain with estimates ranging from 100,000 to as many as two million[19] – and the dominant PKI was in effect destroyed. Politically, Suharto capitalized on Sukarno's gravely weakened position; by March 1967, he had maneuvered himself into the presidency in a drawn out power play between the two. Commonly referred to as the "New Order", Suharto's administration encouraged foreign investment in Indonesia, which become a major factor in the subsequent three decades of substantial economic growth.
In 1997-98, however, Indonesia was the country hardest hit by the East Asian Financial Crisis. This aggravated popular discontent with Suharto, who was already facing accusations of corruption. Popular protests against his now weakened presidency broke out in early 1998[21] and on 21 May 1998, Suharto announced his resignation, ushering in the Reformasi era in Indonesia.[22] East Timor voted to secede from Indonesia in 1999, following the 1975 invasion and subsequent twenty-five-year occupation marked by repression and human rights abuses, for which Indonesia was internationally condemned.
A wide range of reforms have been introduced since Suharto's resignation, including Indonesia's first direct presidential election in 2004, although progress has been slowed by political and economic instability, social unrest, terrorism and recent natural disasters. Although relations among different religious and ethnic groups are largely harmonious, acute sectarian discontent, even violence, remains a problem in some areas. A political settlement to an armed separatist conflict in Aceh was achieved in 2005.

Background Information :

Head of State
:President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

Capital
:Jakarta

Land area
:1,890,000 sq.km.

Population
:215,960 thousands (2004).

Language
:Bahasa Indonesia

Religion
:Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism

Member of
:ASEAN, UN, IMF, ESCAP, FAO, ILO, UNESCO, IBRD, IFC, MIGA, IDB, IDA, ADB, WTO, APEC, ASEM, EALAF

Currency
:Rupiah

GDP
:US$ 208,625 million (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Pulp and paper, cement, basic metals and fertilizer, power generation, telecommunication, transportation

Major Exports
:Textile, electronic goods, footwear, oil & gas, plywood, sawn timber

Major Imports
:Chemical and pharmaceutical, fertilizer, cotton yarns, textile fabric, machines, motor vehicles

Republic of Singapore

2007-09-13T01:06:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The Singapore flag was officially adopted on December 3, 1959. The white crescent represents Singapore as a new nation, the five stars symbolize democracy, equality, justice, peace and progress, while white is representative of the purity and virtue of the people, and red stands for universal brotherhood.
The Flag of Singapore consists of two horizontal halves, red above white. Red symbolises universal brotherhood and equality of man; white stands for pervading and everlasting purity and virtue. In the upper left corner, a white crescent moon and five white stars form a circle. The crescent moon represents a young nation on the rise. The five stars stand for the ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality.
The flag was also carefully designed to please the community. Red was chosen, as it symbolised good fortune for the Chinese and courage for the Malays. White was chosen as it was the traditional Malay and universal colour for purity. The Chinese, who were influenced by Communist China, wanted stars on the flag, while the Malays wanted a crescent moon to symbolise Islam. So, the government came to a compromise with five stars and a moon instead of the traditional star and crescent representing Islam.[1]
For over 140 years (1819-1959), the Union Flag flew over Singapore. Then, on 3 December 1959, the National Flag was unveiled at the installation of the new Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, when Singapore was granted self-government (but not complete independence) by the British Government. Also unveiled that day were the State Crest and the National Anthem. The flag was conceived and created by a committee headed by then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye.

Background Information :

Head of State
:President S R Nathan

Head of Government
:Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

Capital
:Singapore

Land area
:697.1 sq.km

Population
:4.198 million (2004)

Language
:English, Malay, Mandarin, Tamil

Religion
:Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism and Hinduism

Member of
:ASEAN, ADB, APEC, ARF, COMMONWEALTH, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, IDA, IFC, IMF, IFAD, IMO, ILO, ITU, UNIDO, UPO, WHO, ASEM, EALAF, WTO, WIPO, ICAO, NAM, G77

Currency
:Singapore Dollar (S$)

GDP
:US$106,818 million (2004) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Electronics, chemicals, banking and finance, real estate, tourism, trading

Major Exports
:Petroleum products, industrial machines, radio & television receivers & parts, electronic component & parts, clothing, beverages & tobacco

Major Imports
:Crude petroleum, iron & steel, industrial machines, electric generators, electronic component and parts

Union of Myanmar

2007-09-13T01:04:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The Burma (Myanmar) flag was officially adopted on January 4, 1974. Red, blue and white symbolize courage, peace and purity, in that order. The flag features a socialist style symbol on the blue field.

The flag of Myanmar was adopted on January 3, 1974 upon the declaration of a socialist republic in Burma by Ne Win.
The new flag design was not radically different from the previous flag of Myanmar (then called Burma) in that both featured a red field with a blue canton in the upper corner on the hoist side. However, the imagery within the canton was changed to a cog wheel with a bushel of rice superimposed upon it. These socialist symbols stand for the workers and farmers. Surrounding this are 14 five-pointed stars that represent the administrative divisions of Myanmar. The white color symbolises purity, the blue symbolises peace and integrity, and the red symbolises courage.
It is similar to the flag of the Republic of China.
Due to the current flag's connection to the Ne Win regime, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma uses the historic 1948 flag of Burma as a symbol of the democracy movement of Burma.

Modern History

On 1 April 1937, Burma became a separately administered territory, independent of the Indian administration. The vote for keeping Burma in India, or as a separate colony "khwe-yay-twe-yay" divided the populace, and laid the ground work for the insurgencies to come after independence. In the 1940s, the Thirty Comrades, led by Aung San, founded the Burma Independence Army [6] The Thirty Comrades received training in Japan.

During World War II Burma became a major front in the Southeast Asian Theatre. Initially the Japanese-led Burma Campaign succeeded and the British were expelled from most of Burma, but the Allies retaliated. By July 1945 they had retaken the country. The Burmese fought for both sides in the war. Although many Burmese fought initially for the Japanese, some Burmese also served in the British Burma Army in 1941-1942. In 1943, the Chin Levies and Kachin Levies were formed in the border districts of Burma still under British control. The Burma Rifles fought as part of the Chindits under General Orde Wingate from 1943-1945. Later in the war, the Americans created American-Kachin Rangers which also fought for the Allies. Many other Burmese fought with the British Special Operations Executive. The Burma Independence Army under the command of Aung San and the Arakan National Army fought with the Japanese from 1942-1944, but rose up against the Japanese in 1945.
In 1947, Aung San became Deputy Chairman of the Executive Council of Burma, a transitional government. But in July 1947, political rivals assassinated Aung San and several cabinet members. On 4 January 1948, the nation became an independent republic, named the Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first Prime Minister. Unlike most other former British colonies, it did not become a member of the Commonwealth. A bicameral parliament was formed, consisting of a Chamber of Deputies and a Chamber of Nationalities.[7] The geographical area Myanmar encompasses today can be traced to the Panglong Agreement, which combined Burma Proper, which consisted of Lower Burma and Upper Burma, and the Frontier Areas, which had been administered separately by the British.

The flag of the National League for Democracy is represented by a 'fighting peacock', a symbol of freedom.[9]
In 1961, U Thant, then Burma's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former Secretary to the Prime Minister, was elected Secretary-General of the United Nations; he was the first non-Westerner to head any international organization and would serve as UN Secretary-General for ten years.[10] Among the Burmese to work at the UN when he was Secretary-General was a young Aung San Suu Kyi.
Democratic rule ended in 1962 with a military coup d'état led by General Ne Win, who ruled for nearly 26 years and pursued policies under the Burmese Way to Socialism. In 1974, the funeral of U Thant led to bloody anti-government protests.
In 1988, the 8888 Uprising pushed the country to the brink of revolution. In response, General Saw Maung staged a coup d'état. He formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). In 1989, martial law was declared after widespread protests. Plans for People's Assembly elections were finalised on 31 May 1989.[11]
In 1990, free elections were held for the first time in almost 30 years. The NLD, the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, won 409 out of a total 489 seats, but the election results were voided by SLORC, which refused to step down.[12] SLORC renamed Burma 'Myanmar' in the English language in 1989. Led by Than Shwe since 1992, the military regime has made cease-fire agreements with most ethnic guerrilla groups. In 1992, SLORC unveiled plans to create a new constitution through the National Convention, which began 9 January 1993.In 1997, the State Law and Order Restoration Council was renamed the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).
On 23 June 1997, Myanmar was admitted into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The National Convention continues to convene and adjourn. Many major political parties, particularly the National League for Democracy, have been excluded, and little progress has been made.[13] On 27 March 2006, the military junta, which had moved the national capital from Yangon to a site near Pyinmana, officially named it Naypyidaw, meaning "seat of kings".[14] In September of 2006, The U.S. led effort to include Burma on the United Nations Security Council Agenda finally passed allowing the U.N.S.C. to discuss officially how it will deal with the human rights situation in Burma.[15] In November of 2006, the International Labor Organization announced it will be seeking charges against Myanmar over the continuous forced labour of its citizens by the military at the International Court of Justice.[16]
Background Information :

Head of State
:Senior General Than Shwe

Head of Government
:Prime Minister Lt. Gen. Soe Win

Capital
:Yangon

Land area
:676,577 sq.km

Population
:54,745 thousands (2004)

Language
:Myanmar

Religion
:Buddhism, Christianity, Islam

Member of
:ASEAN, ADB, ESCAP, ACU, FAO, IBRD, IDA, IFC, ILO, IMF, ITU, WTO, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNICEF, EALAF

Currency
:Myanmar Kyat

GDP
:US$ 9,605 million (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Agro-based industries, textiles industries, steel mills

Major Exports
:Rice, teak, beans & pulses, rubber, coffee, minerals, gems marine products

Major Imports
:Power tillers, hand tractor, fertilizer, diesel oil, cement, dumper, loader and spare parts, water pumps, hydraulic excavator

Thailand

2007-09-13T01:03:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The flag of Thailand shows five horizontal stripes in the colors red, white, blue, white and red. The middle blue strip is twice as wide as the other four. The three colors red-white-blue stand for nation-religion-king, an unofficial motto of Thailand. The flag was adopted on September 28, 1917. The Thai name for the flag is (Thong Trairong), which simply means tricolour flag.
The first flag used for Siam was probably a plain red one, first used under King Narai (1656-1688). Naval flags later used different symbols on the red ground—a white chakra (the Buddhist wheel), a white elephant inside the chakra, or a white disc with a sun inside.Officially the first flag was created in 1855 by King Mongkut (Rama IV), showing a white elephant (a royal symbol) on red ground, as the plain coloured flag was not distinct enough for international relations.The Thailand flag was officially adopted on September 28, 1917. Red is said to symbolize the blood of life, white the purity of the Buddhist faith, and blue the monarchy. The blue and white stripes were added to the flag during World War I.

Modern History

A unified Thai kingdom was established in the mid-14th century. Known as Siam until 1939, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian country never to have been taken over by a European power. A bloodless revolution in 1932 led to a constitutional monarchy. In alliance with Japan during World War II, Thailand became a US ally following the conflict. Thailand is currently facing armed violence in its three Muslim-majority southernmost provinces.
European powers began traveling to Thailand in the 16th century. Despite European pressure, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian country to have never been colonized by a European power. The two main reasons for this is that Thailand had a long succession of very able rulers in the 1800s and that it was able to utilise the rivalry and tension between the French and the British. As a result, the country remained as a buffer state between parts of Southeast Asia that were colonised by the two colonial powers. Despite this, Western influence led to many reforms in the 19th century and major concessions to British trading interests. This included the loss of the three southern provinces, which later became Malaysia's three northern states.
In 1932, a bloodless revolution resulted in a new constitutional monarchy. During the war, Thailand was allied with Japan. Yet after the war, it became an ally of the United States. Thailand, holding an unstable government, went through a series of coups d'état, but eventually progressed towards democracy after the 1980s.
In 1997, Thailand was hit with the Asian financial crisis and the Thai baht was soon worth 56 baht to the US Dollar compared to about 25 baht to the dollar before 1997. Since then the baht has regained some strength and currently trades around 36-38 baht to the dollar.The official calendar in Thailand is based on Eastern version of the Buddhist Era, which is 543 years ahead of the Gregorian (western) calendar. For example, the year AD 2006 is called 2549 BE in Thailand.
Thailand was a representative democratic constitutional monarchy until the sudden coup on September 19, 2006. The King is well respected and it is a crime to insult any of the Royal Family. The Thai King recently celebrated 60 years on the throne and millions of Thai citizens commemorated the event and showed their reverence by donning yellow t-shirts and/or by wearing yellow wrist bands - the official royal colour. The government is now a military junta headed by Sonthi Boonyaratglin (RTGS: Sonthi Bunyaratkalin). On 1 October 2006, the junta named Surayud Chulanont (RTGS: Surayut Chulanon) as the prime minister of the interim government.

Background Information :

Head of State
:His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej

Head of Government
:General Surayud Chulanont

Capital
:Bangkok

Land area
:513,254 sq.km

Population
:64,470 thousands (2003)

Language
:Thai

Religion
:Buddhism, Islam

Member of
:ASEAN, ADB, ASEM, ESCAP, FAO, IBRD, IDA, IFC, IMF, ILO, UNCTAD, UNESCO, WHO, WIPO, APEC, EALAF

Currency
:Baht

GDP
:US$ 143,303 million (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Electronics, gems and jewelry, footwear, textiles, clothing, mobiles

Major Exports
:Textiles, computer & components, integrated circuits and parts, gems & jewelry, footwear

Major Imports
:Industrial machinery, iron & steel electrical machinery & parts, chassis and body

Negara Brunei Darussalam

2007-09-13T01:01:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The Brunei flag was officially adopted on September 29, 1959. The flag features the country's national emblem. Yellow represents the Sultan of Brunei, and the black and white stripes represent the country's chief ministers.

The national flag of Brunei was adopted on September 29, 1959 when the country was a British protectorate, and was retained when the country gained full independence on January 1, 1984, as Brunei Darussalam (State of Brunei, Abode of Peace). The flag has the Coat of Arms of Brunei in the centre, on a yellow field. The field is cut by black and white diagonal stripes, although they are officially called parallelograms.
The coat of arms is as follows: a crescent (symbolising Islam) joined with a parasol (symbolising monarchy), and two gloves on both sides. Below the crescent is a ribbon. On the crescent and ribbon are Arabic inscriptions translating as "State of Brunei, Abode of peace" and "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" (more commonly rendered as "There is no deity but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God").
In Southeast Asia, yellow is traditionally the colour of royalty, and the royal standards of Malaysia and Thailand, along with the presidential flag of Indonesia, also use a yellow field.

Modern History

The Sultanate of Brunei was very powerful from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. Its realm covered the whole island of Borneo and the southern Philippines. European influence gradually brought an end to this regional power. Later, there was a brief war with Spain, in which Brunei was victorious. The decline of the Bruneian Empire culminated in the nineteenth century when Brunei lost much of its territory to the White Rajahs of Sarawak, resulting in its current small landmass and separation into two parts. Brunei was a British protectorate from 1888 to 1984.
There was a small rebellion against the monarchy during the 1960s, which was prevented by the United Kingdom. This event became known as the Brunei Revolt and was partly responsible for the failure to create the North Borneo Federation. The rebellion also affected Brunei's decision to opt out of the Malaysian Federation and was the first stage of the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation.

Background Information :

Head of State
:His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu'izzaddin Waddaulah

Capital
:Bandar Seri Begawan

Land area
:5,765 sq.km

Population
:357,800 (2004)

Language
:Malay, English

Religion
:Islam

Member of
:ASEAN, APEC, APT, APDC, Commonwealth, ESCAP, GP 77, GATT/WTO, ICAO, IMO, IMF, WMO, UNDP, WHO, WIPO, WTO-GBT, ASEM, EALAF, UN, OIC, NAM, AASROC, UNESCO, APG, WSIS, IDB, ADB and AMED

Currency
:B$ (Bruneian Dollar).

GDP
:US$ 5,4626.6 million (2004) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Oil and gas, textiles, food and beverages, building materials

Major Exports
:Oil and gas, ready-made garments

Major Imports
:Transport equipment and machinery, manufactured goods, food chemicals

Republic of the Philippines

2007-09-13T00:59:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The significance of the colors, red, white, and blue, are currently attributed as follows: the white triangle stands for equality and fraternity; the blue for peace, truth and justice; and red for patriotism and valor. However, the original Declaration of Independence stated that the three colors were inspired by the American flag as a manifestation of the Filipino's gratitude towards American help against the Spanish.
The Philippine flag was banned, or proscribed, by United States authorities for 11 years, until October 30, 1919.
The national flag of the Philippines was first conceptualized by Emilio Aguinaldo, a freemason (the design shows the ideas of freemasonry according to some analysts). The first flag was sewn in Hong Kong by Marcela de Agoncillo, her daughter Lorenza, and Doña Delfina Herbosa de Natividad, niece of José Rizal. (In other sources, the niece's name was Delfina Herbosa de Natividad.)
Modern History

After the Japanese were defeated in 1945, the Philippines achieved independence from the United States on July 4, 1946.[4]
Since 1946, the newly independent Philippine state has faced economic and political instability and various rebel groups. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw the rise of student activism and civil unrest. Ferdinand Marcos was, then, the elected president. Barred from seeking a third term, Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972 and ruled the country by decree. Marcos extended both his power and tenure by force. His authoritarian rule became marred with unmitigated, pervasive corruption, cronyism and despotism.
Opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. was assassinated on August 21, 1983 upon returning from exile. In January 1986, Marcos allowed for a "snap" election, after large protests. The election was believed to be fraudulent, and resulted in a standoff between military mutineers and the military loyalists. Protesters supported the mutineers, and was accompanied by resignations of prominent cabinet officials. Corazon Aquino, the wife of Benigno Aquino, Jr., was the recognized winner of the snap election. She took over government, and called for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution, after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. Marcos, his family and some of his allies fled to Hawaii.[4]
The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 was hampered by massive national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a communist insurgency, and a Muslim separatist movement. The economy improved during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, who was elected in 1992. However, the economic improvements were negated at the onset of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. The 2001 EDSA Revolution led to the downfall of the following president, Joseph Estrada. The current administration of president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been hounded by allegations of corruption and election rigging.

Background Information :

Head of State
:President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

Capital
:Manila

Land area
:76,946 thousand in 2000 (actual); 85,237 thousand in 2005 (projected)

Population
:82,664 thousands (2004)

Language
:Filipino, English, Spanish

Religion
:Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, Philippine Independent Church, Iglesia ni Kristo); Islam

Member of
:APEC, ARF, ACD, ADB, ASEAN, ASEM, CCC, Common Fund for Commodities, CP, ESCAP, FEALAC, FAO, G-24, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, NAM, OPCW, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNMIK, UNTAET, UNU, UPU, WCL, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, World Tourism Organization, World Trade Organization

Currency
:Peso

GDP
:US$86,123 million (2004) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Priority sectors : construction materials, electronics, food, giftware and holiday decor, home furnishings, IT & IT-enabled services, marine products, motor vehicle parts and components, organic and natural products, wearables

Major Exports
:Electronic products; garments; ignition wiring set and other wiring sets used in vehicles, aircrafts, and ships; coconut oil; woodcrafts and furniture; other products manufactured from materials imported on consignment basis; petroleum products; metal components; cathodes and sections of cathodes of refined copper; fresh bananas (per data as of August 2005)

Major Imports
:Electronic products; mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials; industrial machinery and equipment; transport equipment; iron and steel; cereal and cereal preparations; textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, and related products; telecommunications equipment and electrical machinery; plastics in primary and nonprimary forms; organic and inorganic chemicals (per data as of August 2005)

Kingdom of Cambodia

2007-09-13T00:57:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The national flag of the Philippines was first conceptualized by Emilio Aguinaldo, a freemason (the design shows the ideas of freemasonry according to some analysts). The first flag was sewn in Hong Kong by Marcela de Agoncillo, her daughter Lorenza, and Doña Delfina Herbosa de Natividad, niece of José Rizal. (In other sources, the niece's name was Delfina Herbosa de Natividad.)

The significance of the colors, red, white, and blue, are currently attributed as follows: the white triangle stands for equality and fraternity; the blue for peace, truth and justice; and red for patriotism and valor. However, the original Declaration of Independence stated that the three colors were inspired by the American flag as a manifestation of the Filipino's gratitude towards American help against the Spanish.

Modern History

Cambodia continued as a protectorate of France from 1863 to 1953, administered as part of the French colony of Indochina. After war-time occupation by the Japanese empire from 1941 to 1945, Cambodia gained independence from France on November 9, 1953. It became a constitutional monarchy under King Norodom Sihanouk.
In 1955, Sihanouk abdicated in favour of his father in order to be elected Prime Minister. Upon his father's death in 1960, Sihanouk again became head of state, taking the title of Prince. As the Vietnam War progressed, Sihanouk adopted an official policy of neutrality until ousted in 1970 by a military coup led by Prime Minister General Lon Nol and Prince Sisowath Sirik Matak, while on a trip abroad. From Beijing, Sihanouk realigned himself with the communist Khmer Rouge rebels who had been slowly gaining territory in the remote mountain regions and urged his followers to help in overthowing the pro-United States government of Lon Nol, hastening the onset of civil war.
Operation Menu, a series of secret B-52 bombing raids by the United States on suspected Viet Cong bases and supply routes inside Cambodia, was acknowledged after Lon Nol assumed power; U.S. forces briefly invaded Cambodia in a further effort to disrupt the Viet Cong. The bombing continued and, as the Cambodian communists began gaining ground, eventually included strikes on suspected Khmer Rouge sites until halted in 1973. Estimates of the number of Cambodians killed during the bombing campaigns vary widely. [5] The Khmer Rouge reached Phnom Penh and took power in 1975, changing the official name of the country to Democratic Kampuchea, led by Pol Pot.
Estimates vary as to how many people were killed by the Khmer Rouge regime. Depending on whether or not one includes deaths from starvation and subsequent deaths in refugee camps, estimates range anywhere from 1.7 million[6] to 3 million Cambodians.[7][8] Many were in some way deemed to be "enemies of the state", whether they were linked to the previous regime, civil servants, people of education or of religion, critics of the Khmer Rouge or Marxism, or simply offered resistance to the brutal treatment of the cadres. Hundreds of thousands more fled across the border into neighbouring Thailand.
In November 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop Khmer Rouge incursions across the border and the genocide of Vietnamese in Cambodia.[9] Violent occupation and warfare between the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge holdouts continued throughout the 1980s. Peace efforts began in Paris in 1989, culminating two years later in October 1991 in a comprehensive peace settlement. The United Nations was given a mandate to enforce a ceasefire, and deal with refugees and disarmament.[10]
After the brutality of the 1970s and the 1980s, and the destruction of the cultural, economic, social and political life of Cambodia, it is only in recent years that reconstruction efforts have begun and some political stability has finally returned to Cambodia. The democracy established following conflict was shaken in 1997 during a coup d'état[11], but has otherwise remained in place.

Background Information :

Head of State
:His Majesty King Norodom Sihamoni

Head of Government
:Prime Minister Hun Sen

Capital
:Phnom Penh

Land area
:181,035 sq.km

Population
:14,131 thousands (2004)

Language
:Khmer

Religion
:Buddhism

Member of
:ASEAN, CTBTO, ESCAP, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, IDA, IFC, IFAD, ILO, IMF, IMO, ITU, LDC, UNO, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UPO, UNIDO, WIPO, WHO

Currency
:Riel

GDP
:US$ 4,215 million (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Textiles and Garments, Beverages, Food Processing, Wood Processing

Major Exports
:Garments, Textile Product Sawn, Wood Furniture and Rubber

Major Imports
:Transport equipment and machinery, manufactured goods, food chemicals

Laos People’s Democratic Republic

2007-09-13T00:55:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The flag of Laos was adopted on December 2, 1975. The flag had previously been used by the short-lived Lao nationalist government of 1945.
The flag consists of three horizontal strips, middle blue strip is twice the height of the top and bottom red stripes. In the middle is a white disc, the diameter of the disc is 0.8 times the height of the blue stripe. The flag ratio is 2:3.
The red color in the flag represents the blood shed in the struggle for independence, the blue color symbolizes the wealth of the country. The white disc represents the moon over the river Mekong, as well as the unity of the country under the communist government.
From 1952 until the fall of the royal government in 1975 the country had a red flag, with a white three-headed elephant (the god Erawan) in the middle. On top of the elephant is a nine-folded umbrella, while the elephant itself stands on a five level pedestal. The white elephant is a common royal symbol in south-east asia, the three heads referred to the three former kingdoms Vientiane, Luangprabang, and Xiengkhoung which made up the country. The nine-folded umbrella is also a royal symbol, originating from Mt. Meru in the Buddhist cosmology. The pedestal represented the law on which the country rested.
The Western heraldic blazon is A banner Gules, a Spanish fess azure charged with a plate.

Modern History

Following a brief Japanese occupation during World War II, the country declared its independence in 1945, but the French re-asserted their control and only in 1950 was Laos granted semi-autonomy as an "associated state" within the French Union. Moreover, the French remained in de facto control until 1954, when Laos gained full independence as a constitutional monarchy. Under a special exemption to the Geneva Convention, a French military training mission continued to support the Royal Laos Army. In 1955, the U.S. Department of Defense created a special Programs Evaluation Office to supplant French support of the Royal Laos Army against the communist Pathet Lao as part of the U.S. containment policy.
Political unrest in neighbouring Vietnam dragged Laos into the Second Indochina War (see also Secret War and Vietnam War), a destabilising factor that contributed to civil war and several coups d'état. The North Vietnamese Army invaded and occupied portions of eastern Laos. The North Vietnamese army, with its heavy weapons including heavy artillery and tanks was the real power behind the Pathet Lao insurgency. Significant aerial bombardment by the United States occurred by that country's attempt to eliminate North Vietnamese bases in Laos and disrupt supply lines on the Trường Sơn Trail (known to Americans as the Hồ Chí Minh Trail).

In 1968, the North Vietnamese Army launched a multi-division attack against the Royal Lao Army. The attack resulted in the army largely demobilizing and leaving the conflict to irregular forces raised by the United States and Thailand. In 1975, the communist Pathet Lao, backed by the Soviet Union and the North Vietnamese Army (justified by the communist ideology of "proletarian internationalism"), overthrew the royalist government, forcing King Savang Vatthana to abdicate on December 2, 1975. He later died in captivity.
After taking control of the country, Pathet Lao's government renamed the country as the "Lao People's Democratic Republic" and signed agreements giving Vietnam the right to station military forces and to appoint advisors to assist in overseeing the country. Laos was ordered in the late 1970s by Vietnam to end relations with the People's Republic of China which cut the country off from trade with any country but Vietnam[citation needed]. Control by Vietnam and socialisation were slowly replaced by a relaxation of economic restrictions in the 1980s and admission into ASEAN in 1997. Nonetheless, Vietnam still wields political and economic influence in Laos.In 1995, after a twenty-year embargo, the United States established Normal Trade Relations with Laos.

Background Information :

Head of State
:President Choummaly Sayasone

Head of Government
:Prime Minister Bouasone Bouphavanh

Capital
:Vientiane

Land area
:236,800 sq.km

Population
:5,758 million (2004)

Language
:Lao

Religion
:Buddhism

Member of
:ASEAN, ADB, ESCAP, FAO, IBRD, WHO, IDA, WIPO, IFC, ILO, IMF, UN, NCTAD, UNESCO, UNIDO, UNICEF, WHO, EALAF

Currency
:Kip

GDP
:US$ 12,043 thousands (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Garment industry, wood-based and processing industries, electricity

Major Exports
:Coffee, electricity, clothing, wood and forest product and Gypsum

Major Imports
:Industrial machinery, chemicals, iron, electrical machinery and parts, steel, oil, construction material and consumption goods

DETAIL ABOUT VIETNAM

2007-09-13T00:45:00.000-07:00

Flag Description

The flag of Vietnam, officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, is also known as "Red flag with Yellow star". This flag was adopted as the National flag of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) on November 30, 1955. It became the national flag of Vietnam following reunification with South Vietnam on July 2, 1976.
The flag ratio is 2:3 with a yellow five-pointed star in the center, yellow represents the ethnicity of Vietnamese people.[1] The five points of the stars represent the workers, the peasants, the soldiers, the intellectuals, and the merchants.
The flag was designed by Nguyen Huu Tien (Vietnamese: Nguyễn Hữu Tiến), a communist revolutionary of the 1940 Cochinchina Uprising ("Nam Kỳ Khởi nghĩa") against French colonialism, when the flag was seen on the first time. The uprising failed, and he was arrested and executed along with other leaders of the uprising.
The Western heraldric blazon is Gules, a mullet Or.
The flag of North Vietnam in the period of 1945–1955 was similar to the current flag of Vietnam but with a fatter star.

Modern History
-Vietnam War-
The communist-held North Vietnam was opposed by the United States for its proximity to the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Disagreements soon emerged over the organizing of elections and reunification, and the U.S. began increasing its contribution of military advisers even as Soviet-supplied arms and munitions strengthened communist forces. The controversial attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin triggered a U.S. military assault on North Vietnamese military installations and the deployment of more than 500,000 troops into South Vietnam. U.S. forces were soon embroiled in a vicious guerrilla war with the Viet Cong, the South Vietnamese communist militia. North Vietnamese forces unsuccessfully attempted to overrun the South during the 1968 Tet Offensive and the war soon spread into neighboring Laos and Cambodia. With casualties mounting, the U.S. began transferring combat roles to the South Vietnamese military in a process known as Vietnamization.
The effort had mixed results, but with US support the South Vietnamese were able to hold their own. The Paris Peace Accords on January 27, 1973 formally recognized the sovereignty of both sides. Under the terms of the accords all American combat troops were withdrawn by March 29, 1973. Limited fighting continued, but all major fighting ended until the North once again invaded in strength and overpowered the South on April 30, 1975. South Vietnam briefly became the Republic of South Vietnam, a puppet state under military occupation by North Vietnam, before being officially reunified with the North under Communist rule as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on July 2, 1976.
-Post War-
Upon taking control, the Vietnamese communists banned other political parties, arrested suspects believed to have collaborated with the U.S. and embarked on a mass campaign of collectivization of farms and factories. Reconstruction of the war-ravaged country was slow and serious humanitarian and economic problems confronted the communist regime. In 1978, the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to remove their erstwhile allies, the Khmer Rouge from power. This action worsened relations with China, which launched a brief incursion into northern Vietnam in 1979. This conflict caused Vietnam to rely even more heavily on Soviet economic and military aid.
In a historic shift in 1986, the Communist Party of Vietnam implemented free-market reforms known as Đổi Mới (Renovation). With the authority of the state remaining unchallenged, private ownership of farms and companies, deregulation and foreign investment were encouraged. The economy of Vietnam has achieved rapid growth in agricultural and industrial production, construction and housing, exports and foreign investment. However, the power of the Communist Party of Vietnam over all organs of government remains firm.

Background Information :

Head of State
:President Nguyen Minh Triet

Head of Government
:Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung

Capital
:Ha Noi

Land area
:330,363 sq.km

Population
:82,222 thousand (2003)

Language
:Vietnamese

Religion
:Buddhism, Christianity

Member of
:ASEAN, IBRD, IDA, IFC, IMF, ASEM, MIGA, UNDP, UNCTAD, GSPT, UNIDO, FAO, IFAD, ICAO, EALAF

Currency
:Dong

GDP
:US$ 39,021 million (2003) at current market prices

Major Industries
:Agriculture, forestry, fishery, industrial construction

Major Exports
:Crude oil, coal, chromium, tin, cements, woolen carpet, jute carpet, rice cinnamon, marine products

Major Imports
:Motors, petroleum products, diesel oil, fertilizers

ASEAN MEMBER COUNTRIES

2007-07-29T20:37:00.000-07:00

ASEAN OBJECTIVES AND ITS FUNDAMENTALS

2007-07-29T20:05:00.000-07:00

OBJECTIVES

The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: (1) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and (2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies.

In 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be established comprising three pillars, namely, ASEAN Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

ASEAN Member Countries have adopted the following fundamental principles in their relations with one another, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC):

1. mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations;

2. the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;

3. non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

4. settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;

5. renunciation of the threat or use of force; and

6 .effective cooperation among themselves.

MEANING BEHIND THE ASEAN'S LOGO

2007-07-28T07:11:00.000-07:00

The New ASEAN emblem represents a stable, peaceful, united and dynamic ASEAN. The colours of the emblem -- blue, red, white and yellow -- represent the main colours of the crests of all the ASEAN countries.

The blue represents peace and stability. Red depicts courage and dynamism. White shows purity and yellow symbolises prosperity.

The ten stalks of padi represent the dream of ASEAN's Founding Fathers for an ASEAN comprising all the ten countries in Southeast Asia bound together in friendship and solidarity. The circle represents the unity of ASEAN.

History of the ASEAN

2007-07-28T06:54:00.000-07:00

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the Bangkok Declaration by the five original Member Countries namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined the Association on 8 January 1984. Vietnam became the seventh member of ASEAN on 28 July 1995. Laos and Myanmar were admitted into ASEAN on 23 July 1997.

The Bangkok Declaration united the ASEAN Member Countries in a joint effort to promote economic cooperation and the welfare of the people in the region. The Bangkok Declaration set out guidelines for ASEAN's activities and defined the aims of the organization. The ASEAN nations came together with three main objectives in mind: to promote the economic, social and cultural development of the region through cooperative programmes; to safeguard the political and economic stability of the region against big power rivalry; and to serve as a forum for the resolution of intra-regional differences