ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Dialogue 2009: Report of proceedings

Asialink sponsors and leads for Australia the annual ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand (AANZ) Dialogue, convened by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies Malaysia in partnership with the Asia New Zealand Foundation. The Dialogues are informal meetings among the ASEAN states, Australia and New Zealand focused around major issues in the region, and about the part that this group can play in their resolution. 

Topics typically include regional security architecture, irregular migration, regional maritime security, strategic economic initiatives, and countering violent extremism. 

The AANZ Dialogues are a valuable component of Asialink's Track II Diplomacy. 

The 2009 dialogue 

The Australian delegation was led byAsialink, in collaboration with the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the Lowy Institute and the Australian National University, and there were also representatives from DFAT, AusAID and the Office of National Assessments. The New Zealand team was led by the Asia New Zealand Foundation. TheASEAN-ISISorganisation has been influential in the development of ASEAN and broaderEast Asian regionalism. 

Establishing an annual Australia/New Zealand meeting with this organisation is a significant new step indeepening Australian engagementwith the Asian policy-influencing elite that is currently seeking to reshape the region in the context of a new balance of global power. Unlike most AustralianTrack IIactivity, thisDialogueis in an 'East Asian' not an 'Asia Pacific' setting, and does not have United States participation. A number of the ASEAN participants at this meeting had also been at Prime Minister Rudd's Sydney conference several days before, from 3-5 December. 

The first session of the Dialogue brought home the real strengths of the ASEAN,Australia and New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA), which was signed in February of this year. The comprehensiveness of the Agreement, its particular approach to rules of origin and its stress on cooperation (including in the building of production networks) are good news – but Dialogue discussion did underline the need for governments to communicate effectively the potential opportunities to the private sector. The relevance of such agreements to practical business people should be spelt out very carefully. 

The second session, dealing with regional 'architecture', was at times not just lively but passionate – and we recalled that we had promised at our initial Dialogue in December 2008 to be frank and open in our discussions! A number of ASEAN representatives expressed strong opposition to the creation of new regional institutions – includingPrime Minister’s Rudd’s Asia Pacific community concept. 

In this session, our senior Australian DFAT official made clear that – at least at government level – Australian thinking about regional institutions is a work in progress. We are open to regional views, and the Australian officials at this Dialogue were certainly listening. One observation made was that the messy architecture of the region is not to be blamed merely on poor institutional architects. It is a reflection of deep, unresolved issues – one of which (referred to in the session) is the China-Japan dynamic. 

We need to address, therefore, not just the problem of messy architecture, but the fact that we live in a complex, currently transforming, messy region. As one participant put it, we do not at this stage even have agreement over how to define the 'region'. Where we did have agreement at the Dialogue, however, was in the view that it is necessary to consider ways in which regional cooperation, of one type or another, can be strengthened. 

In the third humanitarian-crises session, hearing of the 198 NGOs involved in the Padang crisis, and the way different aid agencies (both government and private) seem not to communicate easily, we thought again – in a very concrete manner – about the potential advantages of having effective, responsive regional institutions. Some real headway appears to have been made in formulating regional agreements and strategies, but we heard a good deal about the problems of putting these strategies into operation. One observation that came through clearly from the presentations and discussion concerns the advantages that can be gained when Australian, New Zealand or other international aid operations are able to forge alliances within the region itself. The medical aid organisation, Mercy Malaysia, is one obvious local partner. 

In the final 'security cooperation' session we again discussed practical regional cooperation – in such areas as transnational crime, people smuggling and counter-terrorism.  With respect to more traditional security concerns, Australia is especially active in bilateral or smaller multi-lateral arrangements. Apart from the United States alliance, there are the 'Five Power Defence Arrangements' (involving Malaysia and Singapore as well as the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand), the long-term cooperation with Japan and developing relations with India, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. 

In many cases a real depth of cooperation is being achieved, with joint military exercises, cooperative military training and intelligence sharing – but much of this engagement is overlooked in public discussion in Australia, which tends to be preoccupied with China. In discussion at this Dialogue, one concrete issue raised was the possibility that the Five Power Defence Arrangements – in operation now for almost four decades – might be adapted in some way to relate more broadly to security concerns across Southeast Asia.