ASEANS ROLE IN FIGHTING BIOTERRORISM IN THE SOUTHEAST ASIA REGION.

CHAPTER V

ASEAN

While talking about bioterrorism it is important to emphasize the note of the influence it would have on the security and protection of the individuals, in the first line, and through them to the security of the national state and region. How important these questions became state the fact that most of the policymakers today are emphasizing the protection against external threats such are terrorism and pandemics as the most crucial ones. The national and individual securities are, in that sense, linked to the understanding of the health security, which involves ensuring that the outbreak of contagious and virulent disease can be contained locally. In the Asia Pacific region that outbreak, so far, presumed the spread of avian flu by birds, with the possibility that the virus could gain a form that would allow it to be transmitted from human to human. Palmore, a mathematics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the director of the university's Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security confirmed those predictions, "Of course, the spread of AIDS has been and continues to be a major concern worldwide," he said, "but an even greater threat, with regard to international security, may well be avian influenza,"69 or bird flu.

The next chapter will try to explain the manner and mechanisms ASEAN used as an regional organization to deal with those threats and possible effects they can have on the human, national and regional security.

69 _{Eureka, Mitchell M., 24.01.2006, Bird flu poses threat to international security, Illinois scholar} says , http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uoia-bfp012406.php, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [20.02.2013]

5.1. ASEAN development

While Europe was more oriented toward national economy and independency,

due to the fact that in her history, differently from Asia, she didn‟t suffer because

of the colonialism, the main characteristic of Asia is that she ended having low regional institutions, much bigger territory than Europe with much more cultural and ethnic diversity on it. With the exception of Japan, China and Thailand, all Asian countries are postcolonial and under the influence of western imperialism. Long history of war between Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and process of decolonization made the system of weak states which soon became dominated

by foreign powers, “as the region was a main frontline in the superpower rivalry.”70 Those countries will stay under the influence of ideological fights of communists and anti-communists which will divide China, Korea and Vietnam. Similar situation we have in Indonesia during 1965 fight against communism or during the occupation of East Timor in 1975; in Burma, Philippines and Cambodia with civil wars, from which today we have just questions over the confrontation between Cambodia and Thailand and the issues of South China Sea as non-solved.

With the situation of US deployments in 1962 and 1963 and military bases in Vietnam (by US and Soviet Union), Philippines (by US), and Thailand (by US), Indonesia was the first one to switch from confrontation with its neighbors to

“policy of promoting regional political stability in order to underpin region wide

70 _{Buza B., Wae er O., , Regio s a d po ers. The stru ture of i ter atio al se urity} , Cambridge University Press, p.128

economic development projects.”71 _{That idea found it‟s roots in establishing}

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations - ASEAN as an organization with the goal to “promote regional peace and stability; to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields; to maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional organizations with similar aims and purposes”72. Ideals were shared by the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the Founding Fathers of ASEAN: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand. Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten Member States of ASEAN.

But, the creation of ASEAN, didn‟t change the fact that states remained divided into two groups: communist bloc, oriented toward Soviet Union which is dominated by Vietnam and includes and Laos and Cambodia, and second one, anti-communist, which is oriented toward west.

One of the main goals of that divided world is to bring to the reality an ASEAN Community, by 2015. Its realization would put the accent on the security of more than 600 million citizens. The way that is going to be done depends on the meaner terrorism is going to be dealt with.

71 _{Buza B., Wae er O., , Regio s a d po ers. The stru t}

ure of inter atio al se urity , Cambridge University Press, p.134

72

The Asean Declaration (Bangkok Declaration), Bangkok, 8 August 1967,

The way terrorism is going to be dealt with is influenced by the importance each member state is giving to the terrorism issues. As a phenomena that is in South East Asia correlated to the Islamic movements, terrorism was present during the times of resistance in XIX century against westernized control and protests against colonial government. During colonization Islam was a tool of rising awareness of the role of the individuals in society and human equality, but tool in the form of wars, rebellion, protests against government in the attempt to establish Islam-based country. Even after the colonization, by the research report

“Motivation and root causes of terrorism”, it remained the manner of expressing radical ideological-religious beliefs, sense of communal solidarity, mob mentality, revenge-seeking, situational, and separatist motives. In the case of Indonesia its roots were poverty and social inequality caused by monetary and financial crisis in 1997-1998; in Thailand those were separatists movements in the southern provinces that were using bombs during their fight; in Malaysia the main issues were students coming from the Middle East, with no intention of studying but recruiting new members of terrorist groups, members that are mainly influenced by propaganda, medias, or growing up in a religious communities, although there are also ones involved in separatism and political terrorism; Philippines are dealing with several causes of terrorism: “communist insurgency, different groups of rebels in Southern Philippines (Bangsamoro), violent crimes related to the local

and electoral politics.” 73

73 _{Neil J. Mel i , 7, Co fli t i “outher Thaila d: Isla is , Viole e a d the state i the}

Those were the reasons why most of the theories are concentrating just on a few states within ASEAN when they are talking about terrorism. Those are also the reason why just a few states within ASEAN are putting an effort in dealing with terrorism. But, no matter of being present in only a few, terrorism still remains the issue that can jeopardize the final ASEAN Community 2015 goal of all member states.

The first important step toward that goal was the moment of signing the ASEAN regional Convention on Counter-Terrorism, 13 January 2007. That Convention made ASEAN as the first regional group in the world with a comprehensive convention countering terrorism, followed by the establishment of the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC) and Senior Official Meeting on Transnational Crime (SOMTC). With the similar role ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and ASEAN Defense Ministerial Meeting (ADMM) and ADMM Plus were made.

Creation of the AMMTC, SOMTC, ARF, ADMM and ADMM Plus were signs that ASEAN is walking the right road, leading toward the necessary cooperation in the fight against terrorism. But after only Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore and Viet Nam being countries from the organization that submitted information on their implementation of the national WMD controls, international community started thinking that the counter-terrorism agenda

doesn‟t have the same importance among all ASEAN members. Concern is that informal and voluntary character of ASEAN wouldn‟t be enough in the fight for a

safe, peaceful and stabile region, free of terrorism threats. Not if continues functioning without stronger and institutionalized enforcement structures, mechanisms of verification or official sanctions for uncooperative members.

5.2. ASEAN region in a fight against bioterrorism

ASEAN is solving regional problems and issues via the Summit between government representatives, commonly Ministers of specified sectors. Those meetings are held every three years with the venue organized in alphabetical order, with the same program: ASEAN leaders having an internal organizing meeting and the conference, together with foreign ministers of the ASEAN Regional Forum. Due to the fact that members of the ASEAN are one of the

world‟s least developed countries, ASEAN has asked for the help, in contributing its goals, of the other countries and organizations around the world. After these meetings and conferences being held, the next steps in the Summit program are meetings with ASEAN Dialogue Partners: China, Japan and South Korea and a separate meeting with the two other, Australia and New Zealand. Each two years between the formal meetings, informal meetings are also held.

Issues of terrorism are one of the main concerns during those meetings, but not the main ones since the countries are still dealing with the bigger challenges left as a heritage of colonization. The important stand on the issue is that ASEAN sees terrorism as an issue that cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. As was stated, ASEAN member states are all approaching the issue in a different manner. The Thai Prime minister

common bandits”.74 That opinion was changed in 2003 when few of JI terrorists were arrested and charged for planning a terrorist attack on a number of embassies and tourist centers in Bangkok. Several attacks occurred during 2004, followed by the years during which Thailand become a place of strong terrorists basis, gun market used by terrorists and a meeting location of JI activists.

While not having any bigger terrorism attacks on its territory, Malaysian special task force is dealing with terrorism by arresting, having intelligence programs and programs of de-radicalization and re-education.

Brunei is maybe one of the only countries that still doesn‟t have terroristic threat or radicalism. The research report “Motivation and root causes of terrorism” believes that this is because of the existence of the dual legal system: one for Muslims (Sharia law) and non-Muslim population (civil court), economic stability based on the oil production, welfare system covering social benefits and centralization in society, religion and state. But still, they did adopt anti-terrorism legislations – the Anti-Terrorism Order from 2011.

What is important to emphasize here is that it is true that terrorism has origins in individual states and its effecting its individuals first, but at the same time has transnational effects. Fighting terrorism in a region go a new dimension when the Heads of State of ASEAN adopted the ASEAN Declaration on Joint Action to Counter Terrorism on November 2001 in Brunei Darussalam. With this

74 _{Neil J. Mel i , 7, Co fli t i “outher Thaila d: Isla i}

sm, Violence and the state in the

Declaration it could be seen that ASEAN has “great incentive to be cautious and view the problem of terrorism in term of domestic, not region wide,

implications”.75 By the Declaration mechanism such are: strengthening national mechanisms to combat terrorism; deepening cooperation among ASEAN‟s law

enforcement agencies in combating terrorism; “enhancing

information/intelligence exchange to facilitate the flow of information, in particular, on terrorists and terrorist organizations, their movement and funding, and any other information needed to protect lives, property and the security of all modes of travel”76; strengthen cooperation between the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC) and other relevant ASEAN bodies such are the ASEAN + 3, the ASEAN Dialogue Partners and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

The problem with the previously mentioned is that they are related to the fight against terrorism, but, except in just mentioning, none of them is relating to the bioterrorism in more specific manner. Even they did adopt UNSC Resolution 1540, related to the WMD, little attention is given to the section related to the bio-weapons. Nuclear and chemical weapons still remain bigger issues. All that‟s being said shows that ASEAN did accomplish what it was its purpose as a regional organization – to be an arena in which its members are debating how to address certain issues of the common interests or need they are not capable of

75 _{Cho , J. T., ,}

ASEAN Counter-terrorism Cooperation since 9/11 , Asian Survey, 45(2), p.302-321

76 _{Pushpa atha “., , A“EAN Efforts to Co at Terroris ,}

http://www.asean.org/resources/item/asean-efforts-to-combat-terrorism-by-spushpanathan, [28.06.2013]

fulfilling on their own. Accent should be put on the fact that, although it can influence the security off all the states, not all of them are putting the same importance on the mentioned issues. This is why functioning of the ASEAN is based on the principle of the functional approach where the states are organizing themselves as the new threats arise. It would be proved later, in the chapter discussing about the health systems and cooperation in the region.

5.3. Beyond ASEAN

In 1992, the ASEAN Heads of State and Government came to the conclusion that if ASEAN wants to bring to the politically and economically safe region it should make stronger ties with its neighboring countries and the countries in Asia-Pacific region. Those ties should be based on the dialogues. Two years later, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established. One of its main goals is to bring

to the “foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security

issues of common interest and concern; and to make significant contributions to efforts towards confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific

region”77

.

Since 1994 until today ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was able to gathered 27 countries interested in making those goals real: Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan,

Democratic Peoples‟ Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea, Laos, Malaysia,

77_{A“EAN Regio al Foru , ARF O je ti es ,}

Myanmar, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor Leste, United States, and Vietnam.

When it was created, the ARF was meant to use more of those action oriented mechanism in the attempts to deal with the security issues in the region, including terroristic ones. Especially because its cooperation so far was more oriented toward sharing information about the terrorists between the countries. The 9/11 terrorist attacks led the ARF shift its focus from inter-state conflicts to transnational issues. At its annual ministerial meeting on 30th July, 2002 the ARF adopted a series of measures targeting terrorist financing. These measures included: freezing terrorist assets; implementation of international standards; international cooperation on the exchange of information and outreach; technical assistance; and compliance and reporting. The ARF also formed an Inter-Sessional Group ISG on counter- Terrorism and Translational Crime (co-chaired by Malaysia and US). ARF meeting in Cambodia held on 17 June 2003 added another transnational challenge: maritime security. Reflecting this new focus,

Singapore Foreign Minister Jayakumar urged the ARF to “go beyond regional matters to global issues.”

Based on that experience and for those purposes, The 9th ASEAN Regional Forum, Inter-Sessional Meeting on Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crimes,

today are growing and are supported by strong financial linkages”78

and that there is a need for strengthening regional dialogue on counter-terrorism and transnational crimes, without jeopardizing human rights. In the time when even AIDS is seen as the cause which can cause military conflict and have negative influence on the regional stability, ARF also presumes that, among illicit drugs, infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS, human trafficking and smuggling and more others, terrorism is one of the biggest non-traditional security threats to ASEAN‟s efforts to achieve regional integration, bringing to the confirmation that, what‟s once being said that world peace was maintained by the theory of mutually assured destruction; now we are trying to create peace by mutual dependence is now maybe more true than ever.

5.4 National sovereignty over regional security in ASEAN?

Mutual dependence was requiring from all states to fully implement the WMD treaties and conventions. In that spirit most of ASEAN states signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC) and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BTWC). But their implementation still remains underachieved.

78 _Co

-Chairs’ “u ary Report , , Malaysia,

http://aseanregionalforum.asean.org/files/library/ARF%20Chairman's%20Statements%20and%2 0Reports/The%20Nineteenth%20ASEAN%20Regional%20Forum,%202011-2012/11%20-%20Co-Chairs%20Summary%20Report%20-%204th%20ARF%20ISM%20on%20NPD,%20Sydney.pdf, p. 3

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report in 2006 showed only Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia and Viet Nam as countries that developed national protection programs, Brunei and Laos as countries that have only inspection of the imported chemical precursors and limited licensing procedures. Myanmar and Thailand are still not reporting about their national controls. All of those are related to the chemical weapons controls. In the field of biological weapons those controls are almost non-existing. Biosecurity legislation exist in Malaysia - the Poisons Act of 1952, the Prevention and Control of Infectious Disease Act of 1988 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1994. But none of these are correlated to the bioterrorism.

In order to bring to the mutual benefit of bio-terrorism threat free region, the Philippines and the US took the lead on bioterrorism and biosecurity issues, which so far, produced ARF Bio-Risk Management Workshop in Manila, the Philippines on 28-30 September 2010. That workshop brought to the cooperation of the agencies fighting disease outbreaks.Following the same path, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines signed an agreement that has the cooperation of the authorities as the main goal. Sharing the information on airline passenger lists and databases of fingerprints, is one of the big steps, by the agreement, that is expected to be followed by the other ASEAN members, too.

What is also being emphasized, besides strengthening of national legislations regarding WMD, are needs for stronger export controls. That issue was specially discussed during the 11th ASEAN Regional Forum held in Jakarta

on 2 July 2004. ASEAN‟s export control systems are seen as weak, except the one practiced in Singapore. Most of the member states do participate in the workshops or seminars concentrating on the strengthening of domestic measures within export control system, but not so many of them is applying the knowledge gain on those programs. Many of those programs were organized by Track II diplomacy body, CSCAP. As an exception, Indonesia has been trying to secure nuclear materials within its borders, but her export controls are still far from good legislation. Same problem occurred with Thailand. the Philippines, which is in the process of establishing a comprehensive export control regime to deal with nuclear materials and chemical substances, but with no biological weapons controls. Malaysia admitted that its trade regulations were driven by economic rather than security considerations and explained that it was not a lack of capacity that was hindering the development of a more comprehensive export control system. The importance of good export control systems should come together with the developing means of transportation, but also the rising issues of people smuggling and trafficking, bringing to the possibilities of the infections being easier transmitted.

As was said, the ARF was designed to foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest. Through political dialogue and confidence-building, no tension has escalated into armed confrontation among ASEAN members since its establishment. Now, the assumption is that the same results can be expected in the field of bio-threats. In 2007, during the ASEAN counterterrorism workshop in Jakarta which hosted,

except ASEAN members, and bioterrorism experts from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the International Criminal Police Organization, the Singapore Police Force and the Hong Kong Police, one of the main conclusions

was that “the law enforcers are expected to share their experiences in preventing bioterrorism threats and to cooperate in dealing with terrorism acts”.79

Again, in January 2012, during the ASEAN workshop on forging cooperation among

anti-terror units in Jakarta ASEAN and Canada “agreed to take joint preventive

measures against bio-terrorism.”80

It is evident that ARF is creating reports and documents emphasizing the need of cooperation, but with no significant follow up. That follow up should include not just the cooperation with G8, but with all big organizations around the world. Since now, although it emphasized the importance of the cooperation with its neighbors and the fact that Australia is the part of the ARF, none of the ASEAN‟s members is the member of the Australia Group (AG). AG was established in 1985 for preventing the spread of chemical weapons but in 1992 reorganized itself to deal with biological weapons. There are presently 30 members of the Group, including: Japan, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea, but no members from South-East Asia. In so far work, the AG made important guidelines which biological agent, plants, animal pathogens and biological facilities should be controlled by domestic export control laws. What is considered to be important,

79

Jakarta Post, 2007, ASEAN told to prepare for bioterrorism ,

http://www.techzone360.com/news/2007/07/13/2781448.htm, [15.06.2013] 80

Press TV, ASEAN, Canada to fight bio-terrorism , 26.01.2008,

by the authors opinion, is that the group gave recommendations that legal and financial assistance, need for the realization of those guidelines, should be provided to the developing countries. What should be expected of ASEAN is to get involved with the help and mechanism that are already on its disposals, and support assistance and initiatives going on the ministerial level focusing on threats like is bioterrorism. Leading countries in providing those assistance in the region are Australia, Japan and the US. Why is relation with Australia also out of great importance is security of the borders, especially with Indonesia. Concern for Australia rises with every boat carrying illegal immigrants that are entering the country and assimilating with local people without any health controls. For those purposes Australia is establishing deeper cooperation with Jakarta, providing financial support for the military and police. The same methodology was used in the ASEAN-Canada cooperation which concentrated on workshops on preventing bioterrorism and on cooperation among anti-terror agencies, as well as implementation of Canada-Asia Regional Emerging Infectious Diseases such as avian influenza and pandemic influenza.

One of the biggest surprises came at the 14th ASEAN Regional Forum, in 2007, with a suggestion to form a new regional body which will concentrate only on disarmament and non-proliferation issues. Although the idea was welcomed in the international community, it never came to a realization. By not realizing the suggestion, the opinion of ASEAN as an organization of low institutionalization and non-binding decisions, principles of consensus and non-interference,

dialogue above more concrete forms of cooperation. Although this has played an important role in fostering trust and confidence it has sometimes left a gap between words and deeds,”81 became much stronger. As Reuters noted, the World Health Organization has tried to persuade Indonesia and other countries to share their samples of avian flu (H5N1) with the international scientific community.

“Previously, Indonesia had declined to do so under a principle its government called „viral sovereignty,‟ by which it meant that microbes found in Indonesia belonged to the state and did not have to be shared with outsiders.”82

On one hand this stand is confirming the strong sense of sovereignty that exists within ASEAN states, and that stand is keeping them away from the political integration Haas was mentioning, but not as far from Deutsch‟s security community that doesn‟t required so formal institutions as long as they are contributing to the peaceful transition among the states. On another hand the the stand is rising the concern among international community. If Thailand and Jakarta were denying existence of terrorism within its territories and then faced with bomb attacks, does it mean that refusing to give an insight into the microbes is a denial of bio potentials that would, eventually, lead to bio-attack?

5.5. Fighting bioterrorism with health mechanisms

As it was mentioned in the Chapter IV, in the of filed medicine, the attention is on doctors and basic medical stuff, which are the first ones in the line of dealing

81

Marti J., I ple e ti g Resolutio : The Role of Regio al Orga izatio s ,

UNIDIR/2008/8, United Nations, p.61 82 _Bioterroris

- A Pu li Threat: Bioterroris he a d here ,

with the already infected people, to be able to recognize the treat and make the first step in fight against it or prevention of its further spreading.

In order to prevent developing of the situation, liberalization of health service sector was conducted in the context of the four mode of service supply from service providers to service users: provision of remote health services, health tourism, presence of foreign service domestically, and export of medical personnel. After it, according to the Trade Minister of Republic of Indonesia, Mari Elka Pangestu, “the health sector was increasingly prepared to face ASEAN single market”83. Standards in the health sector, agreed by ASEAN countries, namely meant the professional standards of dental assistants and nurses, but the problem was that compatibility of those standards enabled Indonesian physicians or nurses to practice in other ASEAN countries, and vice versa but harmonization of standards of nursing care, competence, educational curricula, and training as

well as developing nurses‟ capacity in providing nursing care towards a global

standard has been signed through the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Nursing Services in December 2006. Now, the integration of the sector was planed, but its implementation was delayed due to the lack of supporting scientific data.

After such experience, it came to the conclusion that teamwork and solid commitment from all the members are something necessary. Strong countries were expected to assist the weaker ones. However, ASEAN has not been capable

83 _{A ar A., , Di e sio s of A“EAN Cooperatio i Health De elop e t of “outheast}

Asia ,

http://fhukum-unpatti.org/artikel/hukum-internasional/83-dimensions-of-asean-cooperation-in-health-development-of-southeast-asia.html, [19/03/2012]

of dealing with such idea. In practice, by 2007, the strong ASEAN member countries were getting stronger, while those weaker ones were remained at the same position. That gap in economic growth had an impact on the creation of health development gap among them. It was directly proportional to health care disparities and uneven distribution of physicians, especially specialists; it represented difficult obstacles to overcome by relatively weak countries in the region. Therefore, several ASEAN member countries that were enable to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in all areas of maternal mortality, the low quality of sanitation and clean water, an increasingly uncontrolled rate of HIV/AIDS transmission, and the rising foreign debt burdens.

When it comes to the case of Asia Pacific region, it appears that infectious diseases and poverty continue to affect health related human security. Within the domain of human security, health security emphasizes on taking preventive measures to protect people from infectious diseases, so the regional health community is focusing its effort on cooperation of pandemic preparedness and response. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) established the Health Task Force in October 2003 to handle the health related threats. Later, it brought

the “Health Security Initiative” and the “2005 Enhancement of APEC Work on

Preventing, Preparing for and Mitigating the Effects of Avian Influenza and Influenza Pandemic Initiative.”

Most common infectious diseases over the ASEAN region are HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and dengue. But, in 2003, they faced with the issues of the SARS and the Avian Influenza, too. Dealing with SARS, ASEAN countries in

April 2003 worked collectively to make sure that the region became SARS-free. It was the first region in the world to respond to SARS on a region-wide effort. ASEAN tried to expand that cooperation to China, Japan, and South Korea. In 2004, that contributed to the ASEAN+3 Health Minister‟s Meeting which created the ASEAN+3 Health Ministers hotline, the ASEAN+3 List of Contact Points for Communicable Diseases, and the ASEAN Disease Surveillance.net website. But after it, H5N1 became the most urgent pandemic to be noticed and monitored. According to the WHO, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand had the most cases in the region so the good surveillance on global and regional levels become critical and required the preventive measures which will, collectively, ensure human security of their own people. But, the general impression is that readiness, in both developing and developed countries, is still not enough. This situation meant that health security is now becoming really concerned with health care and health policy as well for the health system in times of emergency, such are pandemics. Yes, most of the countries in Asia do have pandemic preparedness plans and coordination with each other, but the attention has to be put on operability and effectiveness. For this reason, all regional organizations should share information, make coordination of responses, control outbreaks through International Health Regulation network and help in capacity-building. It is necessary to be understand

that “national health security is a state in which the Nation and its people are prepared for, protected from, and resilient in the face of health threats or incidents with potentially negative health consequences.”84

84

The SARS outbreak in April 2003, caused social and economic impacts in many countries in the ASEAN region, posing challenges to international public health, threatened regional and global prosperity, confidence and stability. The epidemic showed the need for more effective and coordinated response at the regional level. In the cooperation of Member Countries, and WHO, ASEAN they were able to combat the spread of the disease and is now a SARS-Free region.

Yogyakarta Declaration, signed on April 2002 by the Health Ministers of ASEAN countries, declared HEALTHY ASEAN 2020 in order to make the Southeast Asian region as a center for health development and to entirely ensure the creation “of a physically and mentally healthy ASEAN community, living in harmony in an environment of safe Southeast Asia region”85.But, unfortunately, until today, health development in ASEAN region had limited progress for most of the countries.

Local health security was aimed by the ASEAN plus 3 Health Ministers Special Meeting against SARS in Malaysia, in April 2003, APEC Health Ministers Meeting, in June 2003 in Thailand. Product of all of them was agreement to share diseases information and to collectively take actions to apply the same principles on health check for immigration.

In the ASEAN Commemorative Summit in December 2003, the Japan-ASEAN Tokyo Declaration and the Japan-Japan-ASEAN Plan of Action were

promulgated, in which the leaders agreed to “enhance cooperation in the areas of

Services, p. 1

85 _{Anwar A., 2011, Di e sio s of A“EAN Cooperatio i Health De elop e t of “outheast}

Asia , http://fhuku -unpatti.org/artikel/hukum-internasional/83-dimensions-of-asean-cooperation-in-health-development-of-southeast-asia.html, [19/02/2013]

disarmament and non-proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery, and

related materials.” Moreover, at the meeting of BWC state parties in December 2003, Japan distributed the English translation of its national BWC implementation law as a reference for those countries that have not yet enacted their own national implementation law.

The dramatic situation happened again in 2009 when Influenza A/H1N1 in the whole Asia-Pacific region claimed a lot of victims, proving that it is not just the issue of the Southeast Asia, but that can easily transmit and become the issues of the whole Asia-Pacific. The same flu was noted in the other parts of the world, too. Palestine, Norway, and Yemen, together with reported US states, Minnesota and South Carolina, showed that they are not immune. At their 8th meeting on June 21 2006 in Yangon, the Health Ministers of the ASEAN countries pledged to make every effort necessary to ensure that their communities were prepared to address bioterrorism.86 Until now, pandemic preparations and strategies are on a much higher level that bioterrism ones are. It is understandable that Japan had much stronger laws and strategies of dealing with the issues, since Tokyo attack made them aware of the danger. It is understandable that Australia has one of the strongest border controls since, being an island a bioattack can be devastating toward her population, economy and politics. ASEAN never dealt with a bioterrorism attack, but has much wider territory, more difficult to control in the case an attack happens.

86

People daily, ASEAN health ministers meeting opens in Myanmar ,

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

As a phenomena that‟s been present on the national and international level, terrorism is there to stay. By progressing from a role that it had as a mechanism of the civilian obedience and simple forms of separatists movement, with globalization it became one of the weapons the international community is the most afraid of. Bioterrorism is a form of that threat. But as a threat that is not as obvious and with the results that can effect nations and region on a much longer and wider scale, it is a threat everyone should be prepared for. Because it is oriented toward disabling economies, security and stability of a country by using agents whose results are not as loud and visible in emphasizing the goals of the actors that are using them, it is authors personal belief that terrorism will still have advantage as a more effective mean of fight. Since it is believed that terrorism (or

any other form of it) can‟t be related to any religion, nation or ethnicity, it is also

believed that bioterrorism in the ASEAN region has much smaller possibilities of being used as a mechanism of fight of the local terroristic groups, mainly because the purpose of their fight are the ideological differences present in the region, and as such are not motivated by the hate toward other nations or individuals. It would be more appropriate to presume that as such bioterrorism would have been a method much more used during the World War II and the genocide Germany did toward Jewish population.

Capacities for organizing and realizing a bioterroristic attack are high in developed as well as less developed countries. Countries with enough of technical support and capabilities are the source of bioterroristic threats in the same sense the countries with agriculture background are. Even the effects of losses in GDP, economy, tourism or industrial and man power sectors are having the same impacts, no matter in which country is bioweapon used. That is why the system of the good surveillance, sharing and updating information and experiences, as well as good border and health systems are equally important everywhere in the world.

ASEAN did made a huge step in the fights against terrorism. Although it still is more oriented toward recognizing the bioterrorism as a global threat, there are no bigger steps in this regard. But, if by fighting terrorism means reducing the possibilities of terroristic attack, it should be that, by doing, that possibilities of bioterroristic activities are also reduces. All the declarations, agreements and activities ASEAN is a part of, are still not well implemented. On one side it does match the main character of the just advisory organization, but on another still keeps its member states far from the reality: that their common safety depends on the safety in the each states individually.

6.2 Recommendations

The objectives and significance of the thesis were never to developed new concept or mechanism for fighting bioterrorism threats, note in the ASEAN or any other regional organization. But, after researching the characteristic, actors, main elements of bioterrorism and the present progress that‟s been made within

ASEAN regional organization in fighting those threats, the following is recommended:

a. Just because it still didn‟t have proved case of the bioterrorism act on

its ground doesn‟t mean that the ASEAN should feel far from the threat. Because of the long effects it can have on the individual, national, economic and political stability and safety it should be the treated as such: possible risk;

b. Accomplishments of the signed declarations, agreements, seminars and workshops should be implemented in the national law about producing, transferring and using bioweapons; the law about monitoring the scientific fields; implementation of the stronger borders controls;

c. Once established, national laws should be implemented by establishing the proper organ/organization/institution for the each branch of the law;

d. Medical community (hospitals, medical stuff, organizations) should be prepared for bioterrorism – epidemic – response: grants/loans should be granted for trainings, education, drills, etc.;

e. Since there were attempts of establishing contact with the institutions relevant in understanding these new, still not enough researched issues, it is recommended that those institutions showed be more open toward public and academics.

April 2003 worked collectively to make sure that the region became SARS-free. It was the first region in the world to respond to SARS on a region-wide effort. ASEAN tried to expand that cooperation to China, Japan, and South Korea. In 2004, that contributed to the ASEAN+3 Health Minister‟s Meeting which created the ASEAN+3 Health Ministers hotline, the ASEAN+3 List of Contact Points for Communicable Diseases, and the ASEAN Disease Surveillance.net website. But after it, H5N1 became the most urgent pandemic to be noticed and monitored. According to the WHO, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand had the most cases in the region so the good surveillance on global and regional levels become critical and required the preventive measures which will, collectively, ensure human security of their own people. But, the general impression is that readiness, in both developing and developed countries, is still not enough. This situation meant that health security is now becoming really concerned with health care and health policy as well for the health system in times of emergency, such are pandemics. Yes, most of the countries in Asia do have pandemic preparedness plans and coordination with each other, but the attention has to be put on operability and effectiveness. For this reason, all regional organizations should share information, make coordination of responses, control outbreaks through International Health Regulation network and help in capacity-building. It is necessary to be understand

that “national health security is a state in which the Nation and its people are prepared for, protected from, and resilient in the face of health threats or incidents with potentially negative health consequences.”84

84

The SARS outbreak in April 2003, caused social and economic impacts in many countries in the ASEAN region, posing challenges to international public health, threatened regional and global prosperity, confidence and stability. The epidemic showed the need for more effective and coordinated response at the regional level. In the cooperation of Member Countries, and WHO, ASEAN they were able to combat the spread of the disease and is now a SARS-Free region.

Yogyakarta Declaration, signed on April 2002 by the Health Ministers of ASEAN countries, declared HEALTHY ASEAN 2020 in order to make the Southeast Asian region as a center for health development and to entirely ensure the creation “of a physically and mentally healthy ASEAN community, living in harmony in an environment of safe Southeast Asia region”85.But, unfortunately, until today, health development in ASEAN region had limited progress for most of the countries.

Local health security was aimed by the ASEAN plus 3 Health Ministers Special Meeting against SARS in Malaysia, in April 2003, APEC Health Ministers Meeting, in June 2003 in Thailand. Product of all of them was agreement to share diseases information and to collectively take actions to apply the same principles on health check for immigration.

In the ASEAN Commemorative Summit in December 2003, the Japan-ASEAN Tokyo Declaration and the Japan-Japan-ASEAN Plan of Action were

promulgated, in which the leaders agreed to “enhance cooperation in the areas of

Services, p. 1

85 _{Anwar A., 2011, Di e sio s of A“EAN Cooperatio i Health De elop e t of “outheast}

Asia , http://fhuku -unpatti.org/artikel/hukum-internasional/83-dimensions-of-asean-cooperation-in-health-development-of-southeast-asia.html, [19/02/2013]

disarmament and non-proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery, and

related materials.” Moreover, at the meeting of BWC state parties in December 2003, Japan distributed the English translation of its national BWC implementation law as a reference for those countries that have not yet enacted their own national implementation law.

The dramatic situation happened again in 2009 when Influenza A/H1N1 in the whole Asia-Pacific region claimed a lot of victims, proving that it is not just the issue of the Southeast Asia, but that can easily transmit and become the issues of the whole Asia-Pacific. The same flu was noted in the other parts of the world, too. Palestine, Norway, and Yemen, together with reported US states, Minnesota and South Carolina, showed that they are not immune. At their 8th meeting on June 21 2006 in Yangon, the Health Ministers of the ASEAN countries pledged to make every effort necessary to ensure that their communities were prepared to address bioterrorism.86 Until now, pandemic preparations and strategies are on a much higher level that bioterrism ones are. It is understandable that Japan had much stronger laws and strategies of dealing with the issues, since Tokyo attack made them aware of the danger. It is understandable that Australia has one of the strongest border controls since, being an island a bioattack can be devastating toward her population, economy and politics. ASEAN never dealt with a bioterrorism attack, but has much wider territory, more difficult to control in the case an attack happens.

86

People daily, ASEAN health ministers meeting opens in Myanmar ,

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

As a phenomena that‟s been present on the national and international level, terrorism is there to stay. By progressing from a role that it had as a mechanism of the civilian obedience and simple forms of separatists movement, with globalization it became one of the weapons the international community is the most afraid of. Bioterrorism is a form of that threat. But as a threat that is not as obvious and with the results that can effect nations and region on a much longer and wider scale, it is a threat everyone should be prepared for. Because it is oriented toward disabling economies, security and stability of a country by using agents whose results are not as loud and visible in emphasizing the goals of the actors that are using them, it is authors personal belief that terrorism will still have advantage as a more effective mean of fight. Since it is believed that terrorism (or

any other form of it) can‟t be related to any religion, nation or ethnicity, it is also

believed that bioterrorism in the ASEAN region has much smaller possibilities of being used as a mechanism of fight of the local terroristic groups, mainly because the purpose of their fight are the ideological differences present in the region, and as such are not motivated by the hate toward other nations or individuals. It would be more appropriate to presume that as such bioterrorism would have been a method much more used during the World War II and the genocide Germany did toward Jewish population.

Capacities for organizing and realizing a bioterroristic attack are high in developed as well as less developed countries. Countries with enough of technical support and capabilities are the source of bioterroristic threats in the same sense the countries with agriculture background are. Even the effects of losses in GDP, economy, tourism or industrial and man power sectors are having the same impacts, no matter in which country is bioweapon used. That is why the system of the good surveillance, sharing and updating information and experiences, as well as good border and health systems are equally important everywhere in the world.

ASEAN did made a huge step in the fights against terrorism. Although it still is more oriented toward recognizing the bioterrorism as a global threat, there are no bigger steps in this regard. But, if by fighting terrorism means reducing the possibilities of terroristic attack, it should be that, by doing, that possibilities of bioterroristic activities are also reduces. All the declarations, agreements and activities ASEAN is a part of, are still not well implemented. On one side it does match the main character of the just advisory organization, but on another still keeps its member states far from the reality: that their common safety depends on the safety in the each states individually.

6.2 Recommendations

The objectives and significance of the thesis were never to developed new concept or mechanism for fighting bioterrorism threats, note in the ASEAN or any other regional organization. But, after researching the characteristic, actors, main elements of bioterrorism and the present progress that‟s been made within

ASEAN regional organization in fighting those threats, the following is recommended:

a. Just because it still didn‟t have proved case of the bioterrorism act on

its ground doesn‟t mean that the ASEAN should feel far from the threat. Because of the long effects it can have on the individual, national, economic and political stability and safety it should be the treated as such: possible risk;

b. Accomplishments of the signed declarations, agreements, seminars and workshops should be implemented in the national law about producing, transferring and using bioweapons; the law about monitoring the scientific fields; implementation of the stronger borders controls;

c. Once established, national laws should be implemented by establishing the proper organ/organization/institution for the each branch of the law;

d. Medical community (hospitals, medical stuff, organizations) should be prepared for bioterrorism – epidemic – response: grants/loans should be granted for trainings, education, drills, etc.;

e. Since there were attempts of establishing contact with the institutions relevant in understanding these new, still not enough researched issues, it is recommended that those institutions showed be more open toward public and academics.