No Comments yet

• 1. roger ernst  |  September 20th, 2008 at 5:38 am

  This is a key subject. WE in usa need to learn from Asia’s history and successes. THis includes learning to listen before we talk. As a Korean friend said to me in the mid- 1960’s when I was serving there, ” you have 2 eyes, 2 ears and one nose whick equals 5 parts; one mouth, so use htem in that proportion! Also, we need to act on the basis of “do our duties to earn our rights” rather than only/usually being so self centered.

• 2. Yuba Nath Lamsal  |  September 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am

  Absolutely agreed. Asia is emerging as a new economic powerhouse, while US is a a dominant economic and technological power. The US-Asia partnership is absolutely necessary for the interes tof both. Asian growth and development cannot sustain without the backing and support of the US whereas US needs its presence and more involvement in Asia. Only then the Asian sociala nd economic security and prosperity can be ensured

• 3. sandy2008  |  October 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm

  The Jakarta-based ASEAN Centre for Energy, or ACE, was established through an agreement signed by the ASEAN governments in May 1998. Since ACE became operational in January 1999, it has played an important role in initiating and facilitating policies and activities in ASEAN related to the energy sector.
  =======================
  Sandy
  Link Building

• 4. ewdialogue  |  November 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am

  Donald E. Weatherbee

  While certainly endorsing Michael Plummers recommendations for U.S. policy towards ASEAN as an ideal strategy, I found them lacking a recognition of the realities the U.S. domestic and ASEAN domestic realities that present serious obstacles to the achievement of Plummer’s goals. The priority he assigns to negotiating effective FTAs with ASEAN run up against a number of roadblocks.
  First, the U.S. insistence that 2004 U.S. – Singapore FTA be the model for future ASEAN FTAs – a kind of cookie-cutter approach – is doomed to failure. As a leading-edge FTA with its ultra WTO plus provisions it reflects a level of development in Singapore that does not exist elsewhere in the region. The failing (or even failed) negotiations with Malaysia and Thailand over WTO plus items and TRIP plus items are evidence of this. Most recently, Jagdish Bagawati – one of the most outspoken critics of bilateral and plurilateral
  regional FTAs – has advised countries like Cambodia to negotiate only trade related items at a WTO minimum. So long as the U.S. injects its non-trade agenda into FTA negotiations, success outside of Singapore will be hard to come by.
  Second, it seems implicit in the priority as presented that there will be a revival of the Bush administration’s push for FTAs as spearheaded by Zoellick and his successor. The expiry of fast track authoriy and the unlikelyhood of its renewal in the foreseeable future gives Congress a much greater voice in the details of any FTA. We’ve gone from all or nothing to pick and choose. Leaving aside an increasingly protectionist mood, Congress will force renegotiations that may be refused by the ASEAN partners.
  The piece by Plummer ignored a major issue in the quality of the U.S – ASEAN relationship; that is the divergence of views on political evolution in Myanmar. As long as the U.S.relations and programs and summitry, etc. is based on an ASEAN-1 formula we cannot have the same relationship that China does. Any effort to normalize relations with Myanmar will be vigorously resisted by Congress and the very attentive NGO public.
  There are a number of other comments I might make, but I will finish with a note on what I think is Kishore’s undervaluing of American policy commitment to a peaceful, stable, and economically strong Southeast Asia. Accepting the many criticisms that can be made against the Bush administration, ignoring ASEAN is not one of them. As Scot Marciel pointed out the United States in the last half decade has been engaged at both the regional and national levels in Southerast Asia in an unprecedented growth of political and functional contacts and cooperation. I heartily agree with Scot that “Support from the U.S. has not been fully recognized outside a small group of officials.” Apparently, Kishore is unwilling to recognize it.

  Comment originally made on From New topic – on the U.S. and the ASEAN Economic Community – is online now, 2008/11/08 at 7:02 AM. (Moved by ewdialogue moderator.)

• 5. Dra. Jumi T. Samosir, MA, M.Sc  |  November 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  The people who understand the world economic changed, It is the situation have only 2(two) possibilities happened, firstly It is the situation may be as an opportunity to support GDP for the government economic mechanisim for Asia, secondly it is the situation also will be make people to be hungger. What your Ideas, that some country of Asia will be strong partnership for the future of USA. I gree with this statement. It is the Asia in transition era, to what extent their development directed in the future of Asia and for Indonesia. It is the people of Indonesia are currently doing development progress on the way. It is the globe have unity. it is new era, that High GDP it seems not quarantee for the people will get walfare in some countries in Asia, this situation will be effect for the other people in the world.
  Renewing policies of world Development economic and population policies for Asia it self is very important of Changed. It is the government need to intergrated all the aspect of development activities directed to be sustain for the future of Indonesia and the other countries needs in the world. The policy makers of Asia need to be considered.

  Best regards,
  Mrs. Jumi Samosir ( Chair women Bakti Social Borunauli Nusantara of Indonesia).

• 6. ewdialogue  |  November 20th, 2008 at 11:15 am

  Comment from: Dra. Jumi T. Samosir, MA, M.Sc

  The people who understand the world economic changed, It is the situation have only 2(two) possibilities happened, firstly It is the situation may be as an opportunity to support GDP for the government economic mechanisim for Asia, secondly it is the situation also will be make people to be hungger. What your Ideas, that some country of Asia will be strong partnership for the future of USA. I gree with this statement. It is the Asia in transition era, to what extent their development directed in the future of Asia and for Indonesia. It is the people of Indonesia are currently doing development progress on the way. It is the globe have unity. it is new era, that High GDP it seems not quarantee for the people will get walfare in some countries in Asia, this situation will be effect for the other people in the world.
  Renewing policies of world Development economic and population policies for Asia it self is very important of Changed. It is the government need to intergrated all the aspect of development activities directed to be sustain for the future of Indonesia and the other countries needs in the world. The policy makers of Asia need to be considered.

  Best regards,
  Mrs. Jumi Samosir ( Chair women Bakti Social Borunauli Nusantara of Indonesia).

  From Renewing the Pacific Partnership, 2008/11/19 at 10:00 PM [Comment moved to this page by ewdialogue moderator.]

• 7. Sengthong Phasavath  |  February 6th, 2009 at 1:42 am

  It is greate to have read Michael Plummer’s piece.

  US as the most powerful in the world especially in term of buying power always constitutes important for the growth of ASEAN. Although many countries in the world and ASEAN as well are suffering from the world financial crisis, US still plays an important role in strengthening the economic growth of the region.

  I believe that when ASEAN complishes it economic community in 2015 the cooperation between the association and the United States will be much better than the present time.

  And it is necessary for the US to participate in realising the ASEAN Economic Community.