INTRODUCTION

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) is now a decade old. During this period it has not progressed much beyond Stage One, namely, the promotion of confidence-building measures. It has begun to discuss preventive diplomacy, but has not developed or implemented any. As for Stage Three, the development of conflict-resolution measures, the ARF has even decided to be more cautious, renaming it “elaboration of mechanisms for conflict settlement”. Ten years into its formation, it is perhaps fair to note that the ARF is at a stage where it is deeply engaged in confidence-building, and is testing the ground for preventive diplomacy.

Assessing the ARF's record through the nomenclature of confidencebuilding, preventive diplomacy and elaboration of mechanisms for conflict settlement, however, does not do justice to the substantive preliminary work done by the ARF in the fields of counter-terrorism especially, but also on maritime security and transnational crime. Lumping this work under the terminology of “confidence-building” or “preventive diplomacy” just to conform to conventional ARF ideology is both largely erroneous as well as doing an injustice to the work done. This aspect will be discussed further below.

To some, especially those in the non-government sector, this progress in the ARF has been slow. To others, particularly government officials engaged in the process, the progress has been satisfactory although they concede that more needs to be done. Criticism regarding the slowness of the ARF which was initially expressed by officials from some Western countries has since abated, perhaps because they are more sanitized now of the complexities involved in the ARF, and perhaps also because they are relatively satisfied with the numerous activities that are being done by the ARF.

This chapter focuses on some of the areas where the ARF could be strengthened, areas where ASEAN and China could perhaps work together to advance the mission and agenda of the ARF further. It begins with a discussion of some of the factors that need to be borne in mind when considering the subject, followed by an assessment of the achievements and shortfalls of the ARF to-date.