Thank you very much, Cora. It is a great honor to be at the same table with Ambassador Rabe. We have known each other for a long time and we have been through some hard times together as I recall. My assignment is to talk about Indochina. I am, as you know, a small power chauvinist. I don't deal with China except as it impinges on Vietnam and maybe Cambodia as well.

Let me underscore one of the points made by Raul: that there have been immense changes particularly since the early 1980's in Southeast Asia. And certainly since 1986, the Philippines has been on the forefront of those changes with regard to political accountability, transparency and openness. What we call "democratization" can be a very loose and often confusing term.

I prefer to look at what has happened in Southeast Asia as a broadening of participation in the political process by the people. Call it "participatory governance" rather than put a label of "democratization" which means so many different things to different cultures. The Philippines has trail-blazed the way since 1986. I recall very vividly the immense impact that NAMFREL had in 1984, '85 in the critical days of February 1986. I don't think that the movement toward participatory governance in the Philippines would have happened had it not been for NAMFREL.

Let me make a few observations about Indochina. First of all, let's toss that term out. I don't think there is an Indochina anymore. The only claim it had as a legitimate description was that Indian influence met Chinese influence somewhere along the Mekong River in Phnom Penh and Saigon. Of course, the French controlled the area for a while, didn't they, but those days are gone forever. I think we ought to toss the term "Indochina" out the window.

The region shares some unfortunate characteristics. First is the heritage of the war, which I do not have to expand on. The first and second Indochina wars are very much still a part of the heritage of the three countries of the sub-region. Second, the three countries share the immense poverty of underdevelopment and are still among the poorest in the world according to the United Nations criteria. Third, all three countries, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, share an attachment to authoritarianism and a nonparticipatory political process. There are some nuanced differences with regard to the attachment to authoritarianism, but basically these are three countries that remain in most respects highly authoritarian.

Cambodia, actually, is something of an anomaly if you compare it with Vietnam. Cambodia, having gone through the Pol Pot era and the wars of the 1980's, benefited from the UN presence, 1991-1993, for the better part of two and a half years. Cambodia also has something that neither Laos nor Vietnam have, namely, non-governmental organizations (NGOs). There we see something of a similarity to the Philippines. The NGO presence in Cambodia is significant and it marks, I think, the possible seeds of civil society. Then there is a rather weird Cambodian media. You can't say that the media is totally controlled. There is not exactly a free and open press, but there is certainly a different environment for expression in the media than you would find in either Laos or Vietnam. And I would say that Cambodia is not exactly a one party state anymore. Certainly the CPP has dominated, and still dominates, political life there but nonetheless there are other political voices and they are organized, unlike Vietnam where the organization of any kind of alternative to the communist party of Vietnam is not possible.

My second point has to do with my rather mixed assessment of Vietnam today. It is rather unpleasant for those of us who are interested in Vietnam and respect the Vietnamese people and Vietnam as a country to see the rather transfixed state that Vietnam is in at the moment. On the one hand, you have young, very energetic and vigorous younger population. The majority of Vietnamese who now live in the country were born after the Tet offensive of 1968. This is a dynamic country full of people with lots of intelligence and lots of ideas about how to improve their system.

Unfortunately, they are up against an entrenched elderly elite which is bent on keeping power, not sharing it the sense that we here in the West (and I would include the Philippines) define political participation. Vietnam remains basically a one party state. In a way, I can understand why the current leadership in Vietnam feels it is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Because to countenance the formation of another political organization formally in Vietnam at this time could be intensely destabilizing to the communist party. Yet, I would sense that there is a wellspring of desire on the part of many in Vietnam, the 95 percent who are not communist party members, to at least discuss seriously an alternative social and political organization.

My next point has to do with regard to the impact of the elections in Indonesia, and also to a certain extent the elections in Cambodia, on countries, particularly Vietnam but also on Burma. Here you have the beginning of an explosion on the part of the peoples in these countries to participate in the political process. Who would have thought three or four or five years ago that Indonesia would have gone through this electoral process which is going to from June certainly through December and maybe beyond that. What must the political elites in Hanoi be thinking now with regard to the whole question on political change? I think that it may be somewhat disquieting to the leaders in Rangoon and Hanoi.

Let me say a bit about the South China Sea with regard to both the Philippines and Vietnam. Certainly, the Philippines and Vietnam share a common concern with regards to the Chinese position on sovereignty and their occupation of the atolls and other features of the South China Sea. At the same time I would point out that Vietnam, the last time I looked at the map, had twice as many fortified positions in the South China Sea than does China. Of course China has Mischief reef and certain heavily fortified locations, but Vietnam itself is broadly spread in terms of its claims and in terms of its occupation of small land features in the Spratley Islands. So I would not rule out the possibility of some kind of disagreements between the Philippines and Vietnam albeit not on the same scale as the disagreements with China when it comes to the gradual regulation of the South China Sea issues.

Finally, some thoughts on the gradual change in political relationships among the members of ASEAN. A few years ago a gentleman by the name of Anwar Abraham used the term "constructive intervention". He was politely but very firmly shouted down. Then we moved to something that was promoted by Secretary Siazon, "flexible engagement". Now we have moved to something called "enhanced interaction". This seems to me a progression in the way the ASEAN countries are dealing with each other and taking up, shall we say, certain fresh ideas with regards to how the ten countries treat one another. I think is very important.

Thanks very much.

[End of Document]