An Asean identity?March 22, 2014 12:21 am

byAmado S. Tolentino Jr.While the main goals of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnamare described in trade terms (single market and production base, highly competitive economic region, equitable economic development, further integration into the global economy), the documents that have come out of various Asean meetings talk about many other things.On the matter of an Asean identity, the Asean Charter (2007), the Asean Declaration on Cultural Heritage (2000) and of late, the Asean Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint (2009-20015), specify The Asean Identity is the basis of Southeast Asias regional interests. It is our collective personality, norms, values and beliefs as well as aspirations as one Asean Community..The strategic objective is to create a sense of belonging, consolidate unity in diversity and enhance deeper mutual understanding among Asean member countries about their culture, history, religion and civilizationThere are, however, sorts of cultural war among some Asean countries related to cultural heritage. In 2012, it was reported that riots erupted in Jakarta when Indonesian protesters targeted the Malaysian Embassy over dance heritage, in particular, the Tor-tor dance. Likewise, some quarters claim Malaysias national anthem Negaraku is based on Indonesias Terang Bulan (Bright Moon). In the area of cuisine, the Yu Sheng/Lo Hei, a dish served during Chinese Lunar Festival and traditionally thought to bring prosperity is separately claimed by the Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia as theirs.Even the Peranakan (Nonya) dishes, a fusion of Malay and Chinese recipes, did not escape similar claims. (Ethnic tension within Malaysia between Chinese Malaysians and ethnic Malays is still on because of the countrys economic policy of Bumiputra which gives preferential treatment to the ethnic Malay majority.) Another example is the Preah Vihar temple issue between Cambodia and Thailand which had to be settled by the International Court of Justice. In April 2013, about 500 nationalists of the Patriot Thai Group raised the flag of Thailand to assert Thai sovereignty over Preah Vihar.The examples cited demonstrate that cultures should not be thought to have fixed borders. Many of these cultures evolved in the course of time during Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian periods. Meaning, practices in countries within the Asean region continued to be shaped by various peoples and events.Even the legal culture is not an exception. Asean countries have a mosaic of legislations with traces of foreign influence brought about by periods of Spanish (Philippines),French (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam), British (Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore) AND Dutch (Indonesia) occupation.The lack of knowledge of historical roots and evolution of particular ways of life and practices can result in too nationalistic and divisive views. There should be space for two or more forms of heritages, complementary but not in conflict.In short, they should be considered shared cultures that transcend political boundaries. In this rubric are the angklung (bamboo) orchestra as well as the gamelan (gongs) ensemble of Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines which are like one. Also batiks which are either Indonesian, Malaysian or Thai like the wayang kulit (shadow play).The Philippine Bayanihan Dance Co. researched Singkil and found that it has its equivalent in Indonesia and Malaysia, which should not be a surprise considering the geographic proximity of the three countries collectively called Maphilindo before the birth of Asean. In the same way, the popular Philippine folk dance Tinikling has a slow movement version in Thailand. Truly Asean, on the other hand, is kite flying as a pastime as well as the tube-like-wrap-around malong, a real-life practical garment for men still evident all over Southeast Asia from Brunei Darussalam to Myanmar to Vietnam.The case of the Preah Vihar temple between Cambodia and Thailand, however, should be viewed in another light. Involved is sovereignty but a way out is recognition of functional sovereignty as distinguished from territorial sovereignty. Functional sovereignty refers to specific uses of a resource rather than absolute and unlimited jurisdiction within a geographic space. It means interdependence in the sustainable use of a resource emphasizing that states are dutybound to cooperate with each other to promote development sustainability of the common environment.Preah Vihar ought to be enjoyed as an Asean tourism resource, a cultural heritage of both Cambodia and Thailand aside from a religious destination in the Asean jurisdiction. Or, in different words, the change of perception of the role of sovereignty in relations between states regarding their environment should be characterized by equitable utilization ultimately redounding to the benefit of the Asean region.A good model for an Asean identity is the Asean Heritage Parks system which continues to focus on cooperation among member countries to develop a regional conservation and management plan for the current string of over 40 heritage parks in the region. The criteria to determine if the region qualifies as an Asean heritage park include high ethno-biological significance, uniqueness and respresentativeness. Designation as a heritage park strengthens cooperation, awareness and appreciation among Asean countries.Together with the other aspects of the Asean cultural heritage, the designation promotes the twin objectives of community building and identity. Best of all, the concept of an Asean heritage parks system advances protected area goals expressed in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Conservation as well as the World Heritage Convention.All this will help forge an Asean identity which is important for the future implementation of Asean policies. It is a complementary to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention (Asean Way) which can, without the recognition of a cultural bridge, hinder the implementation of Asean legal instruments and tools including environmental laws. After all, what society chooses to preserve of the past defines who we are today, creates our collective memory and hastens our new development as Asean Community bound by a common regional identity. In the words of Asean law expert Koh Kheng Lian, an Asean identity is crucial to bringing about enhanced cooperation to supplement the Asean Way and make it more meaningful, to encourage all to THINK Asean instead of only Think National.Before joining the Philippine Foreign Service, the author was the first Director of the Environmental Management Bureau (DENR) and served as Coordinator, Asean Experts Group on the Environment.

Sovereignty as a responsibility in the AseanNovember 1, 2013 9:26 pm

Sovereignty in its widest sense means the supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which any independent State is governed. Through the years, the concept of sovereignty has evolved to include not only internal or territorial sovereignty but also permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Fundamentally, it means the State can freely dispose of its natural wealth and resources within its territory. Correlatively, the principle brings about the State duty to properly manage its wealth and natural resources as well as due care of the environment. Derived from this principle is also the right of the State to pursue its own socioeconomic and environmental policies.The growth of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is closely associated with two main concerns at the time of the creation of the United Nations in 1945. These are (i) the economic development of developing countries; and (ii) the self-determination of colonial peoples. The principle progressively developed that by 1972, the well-known principle of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment declares the sovereign right of States to exploit their own natural resources pursuant to their own environmental policies. However, the right is qualified by the obligation not to cause any extraterritorial environmental harm. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development restates Principle 21 as mentioned and confirms that sovereignty does not only give rise to State rights but to State obligations and responsibilities as well.Emerging environmental challenges such as climate change mitigation, food and water security and disaster management add new dimensions to environmental issues. No country can deal with those challenges alone. States must continually identify common priorities to deal with those concerns. It must enhance coordination among states and even challenge the dichotomy between regional and national interests, reexamining principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the context of environmental challenges. Asean response in this regard are the on-going cooperative efforts to promote conservation activities which include, among others, (i) The Heart of Borneo initiative to create a transboundary biodiversity sanctuary straddling Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and Indonesia against illegal logging and clearing land for palm oil plantations; (ii) The Asean Heritage Parks program which consists of identified and proclaimed protected areas of high conservation importance in each member country, preserving in total a complete spectrum of representative ecosystems of the Asean region; (iii) The Asean Turtle Conservation and Protection Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippines and Malaysia to jointly manage, protect and conserve all species of turtle and their habitats in the region through unified management, conservation and protection strategies; (iv) The Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion as part of the Asean Marine Heritage Areas about which conservation plans for joint implementation are in place to protect and conserve the coral triangle bounded by the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia.The involvements of Asean countries mentioned above demonstrate the right of states, within the framework of other principles and rules of international law, to manage natural resources in accord with developmental and environmental policies and objectives. It confirms that a states sovereignty over its natural resources involves a number of duties. Among them: (i) The duty to ensure benefits for the whole population and not to compromise the rights of future generations; (ii) The duty to prevent harm to the environment of neighbouring states or areas beyond national jurisdiction. This implies a prudent use of natural resources not only to protect biodiversity but also to prevent and control pollution. Gradually, it has become recognized that under international law, natural resources management is no longer exclusively within the jurisdiction of individual states and that sovereignty is a responsibility and not an absolute right.There is much discourse nowadays about sovereignty vis-a-vis natural resources and economic growth, natural resources and conflict in use and natural resource governance mechanisms; proof that the 21st century marks an increasing and continuing appreciation of the concept of sovereignty over natural resources. Looking back, the decades after the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment could well be described as decades of clarifying and updating the earlier economic and political concept of sovereignty and integrating it into the present legal thinkinga dynamic response to changed circumstances and insights in the changing world.

Asean: Indonesian haze not a sovereignty issueJune 21, 2013 11:07 pmby Amado S. Tolentino Jr.

Illustrative of Asean cooperation on the principle of sovereignty over natural resources is the Asean response to the recurring Indonesian haze, which has been affecting the neighboring countries specifically Singapore, Malaysia and southern Thailand since 1982.It is the result of land-clearing fires for palm plantations and the practice of swidden (kaingin) agriculture particularly on peat lands in Indonesia.Only in 2002 did Asean formulate a hard law instrument on the issue: the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (ATHP). Although generally applicable to all Asean states, it was formulated in response to the Indonesian haze. It took effect in November 2003 with the ratification by nine member states. Indonesia has yet to ratify, which rendered the Agreement essentially ineffective.In October 2006, Singapore decided to raise the issue at the UN General Assembly, a permissible move under Article 2 of ATHP, which specifically states that the Agreements objective is to prevent and monitor transboundary haze pollution through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international cooperation. Indonesia, however, invoked the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. (A word must be said about the Asean way of doing things. Cooperation is done through consensus. There is no Asean Parliament to issue laws, regulations and directives to its members and no enforcement agencies. Non-interference in the domestic affairs of a member State is the rule of conduct.)This controversy illustrates the complex political and economic dimensions of the haze problem as well as the conflict between national and regional interests confronting the Asean. The successful adoption and ratification of ATHP attests to Aseans growing stature as a transnational environmental lawmaker. But, at the same time, the controversy demonstrates the obstacles in Aseans path towards environmental regulatory effectiveness.Perhaps it is time for Asean to take a strong stand, that the principle of sovereignty be modified in the context of environmental law. Far from undermining state sovereignty, enhanced cooperation in the area of environment will strengthen states sustainable development. By adopting a flexible engagement approach to transboundary environmental issues, Asean member states could discuss complex problems such as the Indonesian Haze without being accused of interfering with the internal affairs of the country.Flexible engagement is not yet an accepted principle in the Asean, but its application to transboundary environmental issues is relevant. Flexible engagement is an attempt to delimit the range of situations in which individual member states would be justified in appealing to non-interference to ward off outside involvement in their internal affairs. As serious threats to sustainable development and human security more broadly, transboundary environmental issues would be classified as beyond the scope of internal affairs and would be subject to regional governance despite sovereignty.It is interesting to compare Aseans response to the Haze issue with the threat posed by zoonotic diseases, e.g. SARS, avian flu, swine flu (H1N1) during the last 7 years which raised not only issues of human security but also challenged animal protection, the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems and the pursuit of sustainable development, i.e. sustainability of the chain of animal food production.The threat of a pandemic drove Asean to act with prompt response with no less than 25 Asean soft law instruments. Possibly, Aseans response to zoonotic diseases was more successful as a result of the threat of pandemic not only in the region but also in many parts of the world. In the words of eminent Asean law expert, Koh Kheng Lian, Asean should use its rich history of cooperation among States to build . . .environmental cooperation . . . This would enhance respect for sovereignty, not undermine it; it can be argued that the inability to avert an environmental disaster is a greater loss of sovereign authority than cooperation in agreed programs to control the harm. Aseans deferential approach to others domestic affairs can inadvertently lead to violations of Principle 21 of the UN Declaration on the Human Environment in which all States acknowledge that each must act so as not to harm the environment of each other.*A consultant on environmental law, Ambassador Tolentino lectures at the San Beda Alabang School of Law.

Asean: Waves of naval expectationsMay 9, 2014 10:51 pmThe geography of Asean as a regional grouping of nations is noticeably maritime. For archipelagos i.e., Indonesia and the Philippines, the sea is an integral component of their respective national profile. Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam depend to a great extent on the sea for their trade interests. Even the less maritime-based Myanmar and Cambodia and landlocked Lao PDR rely on the sea for national income.Naturally, many issues confronting the Asean have a maritime dimension. Among these are piracy, smuggling, human trafficking, illegal fishing and territorial security. These issues brought to fore the unequal levels of naval capabilities in the region. Singapore has the most sophisticated navy especially at maritime surveillance and modern war-fighting capability. The other countries are only capable of operating within their own coastlines.Naval cooperation, however, is present under bilateral and sub-regional arrangements. It consists of coordinated patrols and combined exercises like the Malacca Strait Patrols among Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to counter piracy and armed robbery at sea. There are also combined multi-national exercises to improve professionalism, develop exchange experiences and draw lessons from fellow navies. Examples are the Indonesia-Singapore, Malaysia-Singapore and Malaysia-Thailand bilateral naval exercises. In addition, some Asean countries maintain defence engagement activities/exercises with the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand. The on-going annual joint Philippines-US military maneuvers called Balikatan 2014 is not only about maritime security but humanitarian assistance and disaster response as well possibly on account of the experience last year of Asean member countries coming to the rescue and relief of Typhoon Yolanda victims in the Philippines later than expected.Be that as it may, IHS Janes Defence International, a leading provider of defence and security insight and information, mentioned in one of its reports the Asean resolve to take greater responsibility for their own maritime security. This is evidenced by, among others, the Philippine Navys modernization plan which includes acquisition of two new anti-submarine helicopters, two frigates and four patrol frigates along with a number of patrol craft and fast transport and support vessels. Also included are multi-purpose attack crafts with missile launch capabilities to patrol its territorial waters. Myanmar has acquired eight Chinese frigates under its development of naval industrial capabilities program in conjunction with China . Vietnam is acquiring submarines from Russia. The first boat Hanoi was already handed to the Peoples Army of Vietnam Navy and a second one Ho Chi Minh City is on track for delivery.Singapore has much significantly improved capabilities through deliveries of Swedish and German-made submarines and patrol vessels. It also announced a 2014 defense budget of $9.93 billion, a 3.2 percent increase over spending in 2013. (It should also be mentioned that Singapore has the regions only submarine rescue capacity).In Brunei Darussalam, the arrival of German-made off-shore patrol vessels considerably enhanced the navys operational capabilities. To improve training, the navy is building a centre of excellence, due to become operational in 2015, for seamanship warfare, weapons handling, firefighting and damage control, communications and engineering training. Indonesia, on the other hand, is constructing a submarine base in Sulawesi Island and plans to procure up to 12 boats to augment its submarine force. It also announced it would purchase submarines from South Korea. Submarines, after all, are the most cost effective way of denying maritime territory to a hostile armada. In fact, not every navy requires an ocean-going submarine. Asean waters are mostly archipelagic and shallow. Littoral patrol submarines will do to conduct intelligence gathering, act as a deterrent against maritime incursions and bolster confidence.However, a lot still has to be done. Among these are a review of each states responsiveness to defend itself against any and all threats to national security; effective capability pooling; development of an Asean defence industrial complex; and collaborative defence research and development. In all this, there is a strong imperative for more efficiency, more coordination and more cooperation among the Asean navies to create the assurance about the regions self-defence readiness.

FROM THE PHILIPPINE AMBASSADORS FOUNDATION INC. (PAFI)

Mr. Tolentino is a professor and diplomat who also does freelance journalism. His special interests are climate justice and environmental diplomacy.One Response toAsean: Waves of naval expectations1. BSsays:May 10, 2014 at 3:18 amLets face reality. Sooner or later there will be war. It is clear that PH has to protect itself. The way forward is to purchase more of attack ships inlcuding submarines and a number of patriot missiles to shoot down any incoming missiles. If Singapore and Vietnam are able to purchase submarines why cant PH? Having more firepower would deter countries like China from attacking. If there is an all out war, the reality is the Chinese army will eventually win but with heavy losses. I am sure will not watch in the sideline because the attack in PH is also an attack to US.

Asean: Better, faster disaster reliefs?February 6, 2015 11:53 pm

DURING the past three decades, the frequency of natural disasters has increased globally but the worst increase has been in the Asia-Pacific region. Be that as it may, advances in the science of disaster risk management point out that there are no true natural disasters. Many natural hazards are accelerated by human activity and no matter how natural the hazard, it is human exposure, vulnerability, resilience and preparedness that define whether a given event results merely in a rainy day or natural catastrophe. In short, human behavior can be regulated unlike the weather.Studies of experiences about regulatory frameworks for reducing disaster risks, responding to disasters and recovering from them are still in their infancy. Yet states are increasingly turning to legal instruments at the national, regional and international levels to fight disasters. Are those legal instruments in place meeting their potential to increase cooperation on disaster risk management and humanitarian response ?The Asean Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (ADMER) signed and ratified by all ten member states is one such legal instrument. Agreed on as an aftermath of the 2004 Great Tsunami which hit, among others, the coastal zones of Indonesia and Thailand resulting in much loss of life and property, ADMER was already in effect (29 December 2009) when one of the strongest typhoons ever recorded, Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan), hit the Visayas in the Philippines.Some of the militaries of the Southeast Asian countries were forced to respond to the calamity but their voluntary efforts highlighted military operational shortcomings in the region. In many ways, the response was mainly on a national basis. Some transport aircraft and ships were sent but there was not enough multinational cooperation. Analysts trace the situation to the lack of trust and confidence between many governments for which reason bilateral and trilateral arrangements may be more effective.Aware of the need for greater cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, Thailand and Korea sponsored a Southeast Asian Regional Forum Disaster Relief Exercise in Thailand while Brunei Darussalam and Singapore co-hosted in 2013 a combined military medicine/humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise with all ten Asean members involved. Additional region-wide exercises were held in Thailand in 2014. Singapore, on the other hand, offered to the Armed Forces of the Philippines its newly launched Changi Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Co-ordination Center to organize multi-national military intervention in response to Typhoon Ruby (Hagupit) which made landfall in Eastern Samar on 6 December 2014 but was downgraded into a tropical storm soon after its landfall.Take note that while defense of sovereignty is the primary responsibility of the military, the requirement to respond to floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. is likely to remain a secondary priority but one, nonetheless, which is likely to increasingly influence the modernization drive of the Asean countries military over the next decades.In that connection, Singapore procured large multipurpose amphibious ships in 2014. Similar efforts at modernization are being exerted by Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar and Vietnam even if, admittedly, security in the increasing territorial disputes is the prime mover for the heightened emphasis on the militaries capacity and capability in the region.To fulfill the military requirements related to humanitarian search/rescue and relief operations, procurement targets of Asean countries like multi-role helicopters and transport aircrafts would not require new designs to fulfill the militaries secondary role. What is necessary is inter-operability of joint and multi-national missions with greater command-and-control capabilities among Aseans military considering the vastness of the region.In the light of scientific information that natural disasters are projected to intensify in the Asia-Pacific region in the future, the Asean Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response mentioned above could serve the Asean countries well if utilized effectively and cohesively. As an agreement on disaster preparedness, emergency response and rehabilitation, it is about expedited customs and immigration clearance; faster movement of relief goods, tools and personnel (included are provision of food, water sanitation facilities and temporary shelters); setting up of an Asean disaster relief fund; better utilization of civilian and military personnel as well as stronger simulation exercises to test emergency response.Actually, an Asean Co-ordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA) is functioning in Jakarta to facilitate cross border movement of relief efforts and coordination among member countries in joint emergency response.An ADMER evaluation report in 2013 noted that many civil society organizations are increasingly involved in advocacy work around disaster management laws in countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.However, there is a need to complement legal instruments with strong research which could help boost our understanding of the complexities underlying risk and disaster relief at all levels.Ambassador Amado Tolentino, Jr. is an independent consultant and professor of environmental law at San Beda Alabang School of Law.

Asean and China: Cooperation in the Mekong River?October 18, 2013 10:09 pmThe Mekong River is the twelfth longest river in the world at 4,173 kms. and the largest international river within Southeast Asia. It encompasses six countries China, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (PDR), Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam with the headwaters originating in the Tibetan region of China. Its notable characteristic is the extent to which the river is international in nature; not only is it a boundary river for over 1,000 kms. but also constitute all the water resources of Cambodia and Lao PDR as well as the Northeast of Thailand and the Vietnamese rice bowl in the Mekong Delta.A 1995 Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin was signed by four Asean member riparian countries, namely, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam. The Agreement emphasizes joint development, ecological protection and dynamic process of water allocation. China and Myanmar (a member of Asean), two upper basin countries are not parties to the Agreement but were designated dialogue partners in 1996 and have participated in various Mekong River-related activities.Mention should be made of the fact that customary international law played an important role in reaching the Agreement on cooperation by providing a framework of guiding principles among which are: (i) Principle of international waters, i.e. watercourse which means a system of surface and groundwater constituting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole and normally flowing into a common terminus; (ii) Principle of reasonable and equitable utilization whereby all watercourse states are entitled to the reasonable and equitable uses and benefits of an international watercourse within their territory and, by implication, have a correlative obligation not to deprive other watercourse states of their right to reasonable and equitable utilization; (iii) Obligation not to cause significant harm which requires states to exercise due diligence to utilize an international watercourse in such a way as not to cause significant harm to other states; (iv) Principle of notification and negotiation on planned measure the purpose of which is to assist watercourse states in maintaining an equitable balance between their respective uses of an international watercourse by helping to avoid disputes and providing the context for negotiations if harmful effects are unavoidable; and (v) Duty to cooperate through regular exchange of data to allow watercourse states to practice due diligence in their activities.The Agreement established a Mekong River Commission which articulated the principles mentioned above and outlined a set of rules for the reasonable and equitable use of the basins water resources. It also provides for cooperation in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management and conservation of the water and related resources of the Mekong River Basin with the end in view that the livelihood of 60 million people living within the Lower Mekong River Basin will improve.Identified areas for cooperation include, but is not limited to, irrigation, hydro-power, navigation, flood control, fisheries, timber floating, recreation and tourism.Lately, regional cooperation is evident at the way Asean (Lower Mekong) riparian countries cooperate with China in regard to the Mekong River. There is a proliferation of regional frameworks and cooperative mechanisms to promote development of the riparian countries. For instance, a Quadripartite Economic Cooperation Initiative was launched by Thailand and China in 1993 to promote economic cooperation among Mekongs upper riparian countries (China, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Thailand) through transportrelated projects. Another example is the Asean Mekong Basin Development Cooperation launched in 1996, a larger framework which encompasses riparian countries and non-riparian countries. It aims to stimulate economic cooperation addressing the economic disparity between long-time Asean countries and the later Asean members Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam.In addition, the Asian Development Bank supported improved environmental management in the Greater Mekong Sub-region in 2006 through its Core Environment Program. The sub-region is composed of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and China (for the southern region), Thailand and Vietnam. The program aims to mainstream environmental considerations into the transport, energy, tourism and agricultural sectors of the sub-regions economic cooperation program. It promoted the application of development planning tools and integrate environment into sustainable development. Likewise, a Mekong Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Program exists among Lower Mekong River Basin countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) for the purpose of building awareness of conservation of natural resources in the Mekong Basin wetlands and reinforcing the effectiveness and strength of local organizations and communities to uplift their quality of life and to manage wetlands and biodiversity wisely.The cooperation mechanisms in place show that while China opted not to be a member of the Mekong River Commission set up in 1995, it can be enticed to cooperate with other riparian countries through some regional development frameworks. The above-mentioned mechanisms have China as a major actor which draws China out of its self-imposed isolation as far as the Mekong is concerned. China as a dialogue partner of Asean sits at the negotiating table to discuss the regional development of the Mekong riparian countries. It could, perhaps, be assumed that riparian countries in the Mekong Basin (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam) have functioning communication channels with China through various cooperation mechanisms.

*A lecturer on international environmental law, Ambassador Tolentino favors the creation of a world court for the environment.