Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:International integration. Past and present. Учебное пособие
.pdf
Table 7
Foreign Trade of ASEAN with the United States in 2008, in Millions of US Dollars
Country / Region Exports Imports
Brunei 114,3 111,5
Indonesia 15 799,1 5 644,5
Laos 42,4 18,3
Malaysia 30 736,1 12 949,5
Myanmar (Burma) 10,8 0,0
Philippines 8 713,3 8 294,9
Singapore 15 884,9 27 853,6
Thailand 23 538,3 9 066,6
Vietnam 12 901,1 2 789,4
ASEAN as a whole 110 141,1 66 893,2
Source: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Institut Dal'nego Vostoka RAN. ASEAN v
nachale XXI veka. Aktual'nye problemy i perspektivy. M.: ID "Forum", 2010.
The continuing friction over territorial disputes in the South China
and East China seas (Senkaku islands) imposed such a strong imprint
on the 7
th
EAS meeting (Phnom Penh, 20 November 2012) that it
became a major barrier to making purely economic decisions by the
participants of the forum.
The idea of further increasing regional integration in Southeast
Asia was reflected in the plans to create the East Asian Community.
The question of whether such a society would be formed on the basis
of “ASEAN plus Three” or on the basis of the East Asia Summit
became the subject of fierce controversy.
A powerful effect on the debate about how to build the East Asian
Community has been made by the Sino-Japanese rivalry for the
leadership in the region. Thus, Japan favors the future community on
the basis of EAS on the EU model, i.e. with strong integration
institutions based on the principles of openness and inclusiveness.
At the same time, China advocates the establishment of the East
Asian Community based on the principles of “ASEAN plus Three”, i. e.
with the exception of the extra-regional actors from the process, such
as Australia, India, New Zealand, and the United States. Beijing
criticizes Japan for its commitment to strict institutionalism in what the
manifestation of the American might is seen.
The model of concentric circles in the construction of the
Community regards ASEAN as the first stage (circle) of the process
followed by cooperation in the framework of “ASEAN plus Three” and
only then – the East Asian Summit as a higher level of cooperation.
91
At the same time, the implementation of the plan for a comprehensive
economic partnership in East Asia as one of the first steps to the
establishment of the community is also considered.
However, almost all the discussion participants acknowledge that it
should take a long time before the East Asian Community could become
a reality due to significant differences in the levels of development of
participating nations, the nature of their political systems, acute
disagreement on foreign policy issues between them, and so on.
For example, the former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan
Yew compared the relations between the countries of Southeast Asia
and India to the relations between the European Union and Turkey
implying that the creation of a free trade area between ASEAN and
India would not become possible earlier than in thirty or fifty years.
Since 2003, the so-called commemorative ASEAN summits are
carried out once in three years being intended to mark the next stage
in the development of the relations with this or that country which is
not included in the organization. The peculiarity of these summits is
that they are held outside ASEAN member countries. Up to now, there
were four such meetings:
1) 11–12 December 2003 – Tokyo (Japan), in commemoration of
the 13
th
anniversary of the establishment of the official relations
between ASEAN and Japan;
2) 30–31 October 2006 – Nanning (China), dedicated to the 15
th
anniversary of the ASEAN-China relations;
3) 1–2 June 2009 – Jejudo Island (South Korea), marking the
th
20
anniversary of the relations between ASEAN and South Korea;
4) 20–21 December 2012 – Delhi (India), commemorating the
th
20
anniversary of India’s relations with ASEAN.
In 2006, ASEAN was granted an observer status in the UN
General Assembly. In response, ASEAN granted the United Nations a
status of the “dialogue partner”.
Test Your Knowledge
1. Give a description of the ASEAN Regional Forum and the
principle of preventive diplomacy.
2. Describe the East Asia Summit and its significance.
3. What is the significance of the Asia-Europe Dialogue (ASEM)?
4. What is the significance of the Cebu Declaration on Energy
Security in East Asia?
92
Topic for Discussion
Cooperation within the framework of “ASEAN plus Three”.
Unit 7.3. Structure of ASEAN. The organizational structure of ASEAN
includes:
1) Summit of the Heads of State and Government;
2) Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM);
3) Standing Committee;
4) Permanent Secretariat.
Summit of the Heads of State and Government is the supreme
organ of ASEAN. At the Summit the leaders of the member countries
discuss the most important regional issues among themselves, as well
as hold meetings with the leaders of the countries which are not
members of the organization.
The foundation of this body was laid at the meeting on the island of
Bali in 1976. In the course of the 3
rd
Summit of the Heads of State and
Government in Manila (14–15 December 1987) a decision was achieved
to hold such meetings once every five years. However, at the 4
th
summit
in Singapore (27–29 January 1992) it was decided to meet at least once
every three years and since 2001 the meetings became annual. At the
th
5
summit in Bangkok (14–15 December 1995) an agreement was
reached on the mandatory holding of the informal meetings of the
ASEAN leaders in the intervals between regular summits.
In 2001, it was established that each ASEAN member state
should host the summit of the organization in its territory in turn and in
the order of the English alphabet letters. The only departure from this
order took place in 2006, when under the US and the European Union
pressure Burma was denied holding the summit.
Meetings of the ASEAN leaders are held twice a year since 2008,
in accordance with the Charter of the organization. Usual duration of
the summit is three working days. It is opened by the meeting of the
ASEAN member states leaders. This is followed by a meeting of the
leaders of the countries belonging to the organization with the foreign
secretaries of the ASEAN Regional Forum member countries which is
followed in its turn by the meeting of the group of “ASEAN plus Three”
(China, Japan, and South Korea). Summit is completed by the meeting
of the ASEAN leaders with the leaders of Australia and New Zealand.
CFM meets once a year. It provides the functions of leadership
and coordination within ASEAN but unlike summits it is devoted to
narrower issues, such as security or the environment. As the name of
93
the body implies, its work involves the foreign ministers of the
participating countries and not the heads of state and government.
The status of the CFM was defined in the Bangkok Declaration of
1967, according to which it is entitled:
1) To take decisions aimed at achieving the objectives stated in
the Bangkok Declaration and on how to achieve them;
2) To discuss the main issues related to the functioning of
ASEAN;
3) To decide on the admission of the new members into the
organization.
ASEAN Standing Committee manages the current activities of the
association. It is headed by the minister of foreign affairs of the
country hosting the regular CFM meeting in its territory.
On the basis of the decisions made during the Bali summit in
1976, the Permanent Secretariat of the organization was set up which
is located in Jakarta. This body is supervised by the SecretaryGeneral appointed on a rotating basis.
Among other things, the competence of the ASEAN Permanent
Secretariat is to monitor the compliance with the decisions taken by
the authorities of the member states, the provisions relating to the
functioning of the ASEAN Free Trade Area, and promoting the
harmonization of such decisions in accordance with the above
mentioned provisions in the event of discrepancies.
The Permanent Secretariat has no authority to bring the decisions
of public authorities of the ASEAN member states in line by force with
the provisions on the Free Trade Area existing within the organization.
However, the ASEAN Charter adopted in 2007 implies a significant
expansion in the powers of the Permanent Secretariat.
The ASEAN organizational structure also includes 29 sectorial
committees and 122 working groups within the competence of which
are various issues of intra-organizational cooperation.
Test Your Knowledge
1. Outline the organizational structure of ASEAN:
A) Summit of Heads of State and Government;
B) Meeting of Foreign Ministers;
C) Standing Committee;
D) Permanent Secretariat;
E) Secretary-General.
94
Unit 7.4. Main Directions of Economic Cooperation within ASEAN.
The formation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is one of the
main directions of economic cooperation within the association whose
purpose is to ensure favorable conditions for national producers in the
ASEAN member countries.
The agreement on the establishment of AFTA was signed by
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand
at the 4
th
ASEAN summit in Singapore (27–29 January 1992). This
agreement was joined by Vietnam in 1995, by Burma and Laos – in
1997, by Cambodia – in 1999.
The main objectives of AFTA are following:
1) Increase in the competitive advantages of the ASEAN
economies through the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to
trade within the organization;
2) Attracting foreign direct investment.
The agreement on the establishment of AFTA came into force in
January 1993. It involves the creation of a common market for goods
by 2003 and the complete abolition of tariffs on industrial goods
produced within ASEAN by 2006.
The main mechanism for achieving the tasks set before AFTA
became the so-called Common effective preferential tariff which set
the rate of import duties at the level of 0–5 % for goods produced
within the member countries of the organization. At the same time,
general duties on goods imported from outside of ASEAN are not set.
AFTA has the right to withdraw products from the application of
the general preferential tariff in the following cases:
1) Introduction of a temporary postponement of the tariff rate cut
to 0–5 % on certain products;
2) Exclusion of agricultural products vulnerable to competition;
3) Exceptions common to all AFTA members (the goods which
threaten national security, public morals, human and animal life, as
well as the goods of artistic and historical value).
One of the features of AFTA is almost complete exclusion of
agricultural products (primarily – rice) from the process of intraASEAN trade liberalization, which falls within the category of
temporary exemptions (one quarter, year, etc.) The automotive
products of the member states proved also very sensitive to trade
liberalization.
95
Nevertheless, the gradual increase in the number of goods
subject to liberalization under the Common effective preferential tariff
corresponding to the commodity nomenclature had achieved near
45.000 items by 1998, and the total trade turnover within AFTA grew
from $80 to 155 billion between 1992 and 1996 respectively.
Products come under the Common preferential tariff provided that
a minimum of 40 % of their final cost is established in the territory of
the ASEAN member state. However, the percentage mentioned above
may be cumulative, i.e. established in different member countries.
To calculate the ASEAN share in the final cost of goods the following
formula is applied:
1) The cost of raw materials plus
2) Direct labor costs plus
3) Direct overhead expenses plus
4) Net profit plus
5) Internal transportation cost plus
15
6) 100 % of the final cost
.
Exporters must obtain the so-called “Form D” from the authorized
public entity which is a document confirming the exported goods
conformity to the demand of the 40 % ASEAN share in its final cost.
Then the Form is submitted to the customs authorities of the importer.
However, there is a problem with the fact that it is not always
possible for the exporter to submit an unquestioned evidence of the
conformity to the Common effective preferential tariff requirements for
obtaining “Form D”. Another difficulty is that there is no single
methodology in ASEAN for determining compliance to the requirements
of this tariff.
The direct control of the AFTA operation is exercised by the
national trade ministries and customs services of the participating
nations. But due to the fact that the authorities in the ASEAN member
states often take conflicting decisions concerning intra-ASEAN trade,
AFTA has developed the practice of mutual commissions of the
ministries of trade and customs authorities to carry out inspections or
anti-dumping investigations.
In case of disagreement on certain issues in the framework of
AFTA, the parties try to solve them, as a rule, in various informal ways
or on the basis of the ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute
th
Settlement Mechanism adopted at the 10
summit of the organization
in the capital of Laos, Vientiane, on 29–30 November 2004.
15
URL: www.asean.org/
96
In more complex situations, it is possible to appeal to such
ASEAN body as the senior economic officials meeting which has the
right to form the independent committee of arbitrators to resolve the
dispute. If this does not help, one can go to the court of the WTO or
the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
In recent years, efforts were made to further reduce barriers to
trade within the AFTA framework. It focuses, in particular, on the
single window concept which gives the international trade participants
the opportunity to submit electronic documents to the customs
authorities once for each foreign trade transaction and the information
about it becomes available to the customs authorities of all the
ASEAN member states automatically.
Creating a common capital market implies the creation of the
ASEAN Investment Area and the complete elimination of the barriers
to the movement of capital by 2010. The implication was that foreign
investors from the ASEAN countries should have the same rights as
domestic investors.
A serious challenge for ASEAN was the Asian financial crisis of
1997 which caused the decline in production, domestic consumption,
foreign capital outflow, and foreign direct investment reduction by 40 %.
National currencies in the region also suffered considerable
losses. Thus, the Indonesian rupiah became the leader of this fall
losing 80 % of its cost, while the Thai baht fell by 55 %, and the
Malaysian ringgit – by 40 %. Real income of the population reduced
almost by 50 %. For example, Malaysia’s per capita income fell from
about $5 000 to nearly $3 000
16
.
The interest rates growth, lack of liquidity, and decline in effective
demand did not allow taking full advantage of the benefits which were
created by the ASEAN currencies depreciation to increase in export.
As a result, the crisis had affected international trade within the
organization which fell in 1996–97 from $155 billion to $131 billion
becoming the reason for the pessimistic forecasts of the fate of AFTA
17
.
Against this background, the attempts taken by individual ASEAN
members searching for the way out of the situation became
increasingly visible. Thus, Singapore chose the policy of a more active
integration including the creation of a free trade area with some extraregional partners, the leaders of Malaysia strengthened the state
16
URL: www.asean.org/
17
URL: Ibidem.
97
intervention in the economy, while Indonesia, the Philippines, and
Thailand acted in accordance with the recommendations of the World
Bank and the IMF.
The economic turmoil led to the destabilization of the political
situation in Southeast Asia which was shown by the internal political
crises in Cambodia (1996), Burma (1997), Malaysia (1997), and
Indonesia (1998). There was a trend toward partial revision of some of
the ASEAN fundamental principles such as consensus decisionmaking or non-interference with the internal affairs of the organization.
The ASEAN leaders saw the way out of this situation in a more
complete implementation of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration of 1971,
the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1976, and the other
fundamental documents of the association which is reflected in the
document called “ASEAN Vision 2020” adopted at the informal summit
in Kuala Lumpur on 14–16 December 1997. It declared the
emergence of the regional identity common to all members of the
organization, alongside with the openness for cooperation with extraregional partners and the desire to strengthen the role of ASEAN in
international affairs.
The Hanoi Plan of Action adopted at the summit in the
Vietnamese capital on 15–16 December 1998, covering the period up
to six years, became a sort of specification to the plan “ASEAN Vision
2020” among other things providing:
1) Further strengthening of the economic integration;
2) Promotion of scientific and technological progress in
Southeast Asia;
3) Measures to protect the population from negative effects of
the financial crisis;
4) Improving the organizational structure of ASEAN;
5) Establishment of the Supreme Council of the compliance to
the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia;
6) Strengthening the role of ASEAN in the international arena;
7) Turning ASEAN into an effective mechanism to ensure a just
world order, peace, and modernization in Southeast Asia and around
the globe.
The Chiang Mai Initiative was also aimed at overcoming the
consequences of the 1997 crisis and prevention of similar situations in
the future, which involved the deepening integration of the economies
of the ASEAN countries and their partners within the “ASEAN plus
Three.”
98
In particular, at the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank
Governing Council in the city of Chiang Mai (Thailand, 6 May 2000),
which was founded in 1966 and is located in Manila, it was agreed to
sign a series of bilateral treaties on the exchange of foreign currency
reserves in order to form a common fund in the amount of $ 78 billion to
deal with the lack of liquidity and to counter currency speculation.
As of 16 October 2009, sixteen bilateral agreements totaling
approximately $90 billion were signed in the framework of the Chiang
Mai Initiative. However, these steps did not fully meet expectations
under the global financial crisis of 2008 prompting Indonesia to seek
help from the World Bank, while Singapore and South Korea had to
reach an agreement with the US Federal Reserve.
As a result, the agreement was reached in February 2009 on
expanding the Hanoi Plan of Action and bringing the volume of the
reserve fund up to $120 billion within the framework of the “ASEAN plus
Three” and in accordance with the Chiang Mai Initiative. At the meeting
of the ASEAN finance ministers in Pattaya (Thailand, April 2009) and at
the meeting of the “ASEAN plus Three” finance ministers the amount of
the individual contributions to the reserve fund was agreed.
The largest contribution was made by China – $38.4 billion, the
second largest – by Japan and South Korea ($19.2 billion each).
The contributions of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
and Thailand amounted to $4.77 billion each, while those of Burma,
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam varied from $30 million to $1 billion
18
.
Thus, the share of the three largest economies in East Asia,
China, Japan, and South Korea, accounted for 80 % of all
contributions to the general reserve fund, while the share of all the
ASEAN member nations combined – only 20 %. The above steps
were reinforced by the conclusion of an agreement on the expansion
of the Chiang Mai Initiative on 28 December 2009, which came into
force officially on 24 March 2010.
However, the fund size of $120 billion turned out insufficient over
time and that is why at the 15
th
meeting of the finance ministers and
central bank directors of the “ASEAN plus Three” members in Manila
on 3 May 2012, an agreement was achieved to increase the general
reserve fund size up to $240 billion, which would allow the participants
to get up to $30 billion out of it if necessary
19
.
18
URL: www.asean.org/
19
URL: Ibidem.
99
In May 2011, the “ASEAN plus Three” Macroeconomics and
Research Office (AMRO) started its operation whose tasks include
monitoring the activities of the general reserve fund established under
the Chiang Mai Initiative.
The 8
th
ASEAN summit in Phnom Penh (4–5 November 2002)
signed a framework agreement on the establishment of a FTA
between ASEAN and China, which began operating in full since
1 January 2010. In accordance with this agreement, the tariff rates on
7881 products or 90 % of total range of the goods involved in trade
between ASEAN and China were brought down to 0 %. Thus, the
average tariff rate for other Chinese goods entering the ASEAN
market was reduced from 12.8 to 0.6 %, while the average rate on
goods from ASEAN countries sold in China fell from 9.8 to 0.1 %
starting from 1 January 2010. As a result, the volume of trade
between ASEAN and China increased from $59.6 billion in 2003 to
$ 192.5 billion with China becoming the third largest trade partner of
ASEAN after Japan and the EU.
Table 8
Dynamics of ASEAN Trade with the US and China (1995–2006)
ASEAN imports (%)
1995 2000 2006
China 2,2 5,2 11,5
USA 14,6 14,0 9,8
ASEAN exports (%)
1995 2000 2006
China 2,1 3,5 8,7
USA 18,5 18,0 12,9
Source: Rossijskaja akademija nauk. Institut Dal'nego Vostoka RAN. ASEAN v
nachale XXI veka. Aktual'nye problemy i perspektivy. M.: ID "Forum", 2010.
Since 1 January 2010, a treaty on the establishment of FTA
between ASEAN and India became active in full, the framework
agreement on which was signed at the 9
th
ASEAN summit (Bali,
7–8 October 2003). According to this agreement, there was a 90 %
reduction in tariffs on the range of goods involved in trade between
ASEAN and India. As a result of these measures, the volume of trade
between ASEAN and India exceeded $68 billion in 2011
20
.
20
ACIF. ASEAN Community in Figures. 2012. Jakarta: The ASEAN Secretariat, 2012.
P. 14.
100
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]