Prime Minister, thank you very much for a survey of the Asian security scene that was both panoramic in its breadth and digital in its analytical precision.  You have kindly agreed to take two or three questions, and I wonder, if anyone wants to take the floor, if they could raise their hand and a microphone will come to them, if I recognise them.  You see, Prime Minister, I have not planted any questions.

 

So I might just ask the first.  One of the areas of the world that you did not mention, perfectly understandably in talking about the Asian security scene, was Europe.  If one were talking about Trade and Economics in Asia, Europe would be an important factor, less so in security, though some European countries still have a foothold in the region; the United Kingdom, with its membership of the Five Power Defence Arrangements; France has recently joined the treaty of Amity and Cooperation, thus jumping over a hurdle towards closer affiliation with the East Asia Summit.

 

As you here in Singapore think about what Europe could do to help the security situation, what would be the things that you would call for, and what would you look for Europe to do more productively in this region, if it could?

 

Well, first we would encourage Europe to be outward looking. It is preoccupied with many strictly European problems and these preoccupy them greatly, such as the European Constitution, but Europe needs to be outward-looking and needs to maintain an open approach to the world.  It should aim to be engaged in it in the way the Americans are engaged, the way the Chinese are opening up and participating in it.  Because Europe is a major economy, and it wants to take its rightful place in the world, it needs to have stakes, interests, positions and influence - including in Asia, which is a very important part of the world.

 

In Asia, we hope for more that just trade and investment links, for Europe to take a strategic view of the links which it ought to build here.  In the same way that America takes a strategic view of the links which it ought to build here, which it is building here.  So for example we have, in Singapore a free trade agreement with the US.  This is partly because trade is significant, but also because we consider this a strategic relationship to be nurtured, and America considers this an outpost where they can establish their strategic interests in South-East Asia.

 

I think it would be good if Europe could have a free trade agreement, with Singapore of course but also with the ASEAN countries.  It is not just because of trade but also because South-East Asia is significant.  It is a region with natural resources, it is a region with considerable dynamism, which is growing rapidly.

 

This will complement a focus in Asia, on China, on India, on the big economies and round up Europe’s stake in Asia, so when things happen here it needs to show up on the radar screen.  It has to have an impact on the thinking elite, on the business community and Europe has to respond and participate.  Because we think that way there will be a strong Europe to complement a strong America, and the strong economies which are coming up in the region.

 

Thank you.  Gentleman over there, if you could stand up, and identify yourself please.

 

My name is Zarni and I am from Myanmar.  Mr Prime Minister, you gave a very good overview of the global issues and I would like to raise one small, but significant, strategic issue.  This is the issue of Myanmar being a thorn in terms of ASEAN’s attempt to improve relations with the European Union and the United States.

 

Lately, some of us have watched with dismay, the position of ASEAN weakening the constructive engagement and taking different directions.  I wonder how you would propose to bring back the issue of Myanmar in a way that is constructive in these dialogues, because Myanmar occupies a strategic link between South-East Asia, South Asia and beyond.  We are the largest land bridge between China and South-East Asia.  I would really appreciate your frank comment on this issue.  Thank you.

 

I think we have to be realistic about what ASEAN can do.  ASEAN has urged its dialogue partners, the US, the Europeans, also to be realistic about what is achievable.  Myanmar is a problem, it is a problem for ASEAN, and it is a problem for Myanmar itself.  We have exercised our influence, persuaded, encouraged, cajoled the authorities in Myanmar to move, adjust and adapt to the world which is leaving them behind.  The impact has been limited, they have overriding domestic concerns which must be forcing them to act the way they do.

 

I think that we have to accept that our leverage on them is limited.  We can take a strident position and say we will condemn you, we will shut you off, we will embargo you, we will put you in the dog house.  Will we make things better?  Will we even cause things to change?  I do not believe so.

 

They want to be closed off from the rest of ASEAN.  In fact they are not encouraging trade investment relations; they want to be left on their own.  If you want to lock them up, that suits their government fine.  What can we do?  I think ASEAN has decided that we will not have a consensus position; we will leave Myanmar to work itself out. 

 

But with our dialogue partners we have encouraged them strongly that their relationship with ASEAN ought not to be hostage to the problems with Myanmar.

 

ASEAN is 10 countries, Myanmar is one of them; it is a problem.  But we should not, because of Myanmar, forsake the cooperation, relationship, the mutual exchange and enrichment which is waiting to take place and I believe that this message has had some effect, because with the Europeans we have worked an arrangement where meetings can proceed, despite the problems with Myanmar; and we are going to have an ASEAN-US commemorative summit this September in Singapore, to commemorate the 30^th year of the ASEAN-US dialogue.  President Bush is coming and we will work out something to deal with the Myanmar problem.

 

So I think we have to see in context, ideally Myanmar would adjust not under pressure but because it makes sense for themselves, and for their leaders to move forward.  They have decided that they have other priorities, they have built a new capital, they have moved from Yangon to Naypyidaw.  We were taken by surprise but we have to accept that they must know what they are doing.

 

The gentleman right in front of me, in the centre, please identify yourself.  Thank you.

 

Major General Muniruzzaman
President, Bangladesh Institute of Peace & Security Studies

Thank you.  Major General Muniruzzaman, I am the president of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies.  Prime Minister, thank you very much for painting a very comprehensive picture of the strategic and security situation of Asia and beyond.  I personally think that Asia and the region beyond is increasingly becoming vulnerable to other threats, such as trans-national threats and non-traditional threats to security.  I mean the points about the SARS epidemic, or the pandemics that threatened Asia a couple of years ago; also the threat of human trafficking, the threat of drugs, money laundering and the threat of terrorism.  These loom as larger threats to the region of Asia and beyond, and also call for increased cooperation on a regional basis and on a trans-regional basis.  I would like to have your comments on this please.

 

I agree with you, they are new challenges.  Ten years ago we would not have put them at the top of the agenda or even thought of them; today they are absolutely crucial.  If you did not notice the roadblocks coming into this meeting today, that is because it has become so much a part of our lives now that very draconian precautions, have become necessary for very routine events.

 

There are no easy solutions for dealing with terrorism.  You have to deal with them at many levels.  That is the subject for an entire conference in itself.  For new diseases you need close cooperation, you need the scientists but also the political will and the organisational capabilities in the countries.  So when you say ‘quarantine’ you can actually lockdown.  When you say ‘slaughter’, the chickens actually die.  And when you say ‘compensate’, the money actually goes to the farmers.

 

These are not easy things to do, they will take many years to accomplish, but within the limits of what is possible.  I think we have to exert ourselves because a possibility, not a certainty, but a possibility of a real disaster, like the Spanish flu in 1919, is on the cards.  If it happens it will be much worse than it was in 1919.  In this globalised world you see it somewhere and within days it is around the world, on a jet plane.

 

A last question, if you could stand up, thank you.

 

My name is Peter Couzens, from the Centre for Strategic Studies, at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.  Your remarks, Prime Minister, about a new Asian Renaissance are well received; you also address some issues of geo-politics in two of the big powers in Asia, namely China and India.  But in the Asian island of course, we also have the Russian Bear.  Climate change is making a huge difference to Russia’s geo-strategic position, in as much that there could be new shipping routes through the artic, and of course Russia is engaged, perhaps, in a new “great game” in Central Asia.

 

So I feel perhaps that if, in a conference of this nature we do not consider Russia, then we have missed an important player in the whole geo-strategic game that we are looking at.  I would just invite your comment please, as to why you did not include Russia in your excellent address.  Thank you.

 

I think in the long-term if global warming does happen as people expect, the scenario which you sketch out is very likely.  It is not just arctic routes opening up, but Siberia warming up and becoming possible to populate, and a centre of gravity shifting from Europe to Siberia.  As of now Russia’s interest is in Central Asia, it is in North-east Asia with Japan, but it has been less manifest in its engagement with the rest of East Asia and South-east Asia.  You are from New Zealand, you are engaged with Asia.  The Russians claim to be engaged with Asia too, and their claim to this is based on the fact that their trade with Asia is about the same as New Zealand’s trade with Asia.

 

So, there is some distance to go yet. They want to be part of the region, they are in APEC, and they have played some role, although not the most active role, within APEC.  We have formed the East Asia Summit, Russia has not been one of the members, they have an interest in joining the East Asia Summit and as the engagement deepens substantively, I think it would make sense for us to consider Russia’s participation.

 

As of now I would say Russia’s preoccupation is not with the Far East, but the West.  Their near‑abroad, the former Eastern European Countries, the Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, the Baltic States and their relations with Europe…  I think that is where their mindset is, that is where the weight of the economy is, that is where they see their security issues as most urgent.  But that is a position which could change over time.

Chairman

 

Prime Minister, thank you very much for the tribute that you have paid to this event by the care that you have taken over your prepared remarks, and the relaxed and frank manner in which you have answered all of our questions.  I think, sir, it is time for dinner; thank you very much indeed.