In the consideration of the structural change in Southeast Asia countries, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia experienced fairly high level of structural change; Vietnam was in the middle level, and Philippine and Thailand experienced relatively low level of the change.
After 12years from the East Asian financial crisis during 1997-1998, higher value-added strategic industries include car, finance, new & renewable energy, IT and medical tourism. In relation with this, when we cooperate with Southeast Asia strategic industries, largely three factors should be considered.
First of all, the cooperation with Southeast Asia strategic industries has to satisfy the foreign market demand and also to strive to promote efficiency of domestic industries simultaneously.
Second, in regard to governmental cooperation, we need to consider not only with the each Southeast Asian country’s cooperation, but also with entire ASEAN and regional development. Especially, it should be accomplished in the purpose of contribution in ASEAN community formation, as planned until 2015.
Thirdly, it is appropriate to approach by each level in terms of long-term investment rather than short-term profit production under the private circumstance.
In regard to vehicle industry, it is required to begin with exportation of low priced vehicle or multi-purpose vehicle, utilizing India and China for vehicle or parts provision. In the long run, securing price competitiveness is needed by building local CKD base.
If we consider “motorization”, in the short term, Thailand where is maturely developed in several fields and, in the long term, Indonesia where have high potential demand are seemed to be advantageous.
As for IT industry, according to an increase in demand of wireless, a new service relating to wireless broadband such as WiBro(WiMax) and DMB will provide our companies with new opportunity. In a governmental view, the structure that can contribute for more efficient IT cooperation with ASEAN is needed and it will enhance a synergy effect along with the connection to government ODA business.
In the field of finance, it is essential for Korean companies invested in Southeast countries and financial institutions to mutual cooperate. In addition to recently settled Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralism (CMIM), the proposal for enhancing investment of Asia bond market (ABMI) should be expedited.
Fostering medical tourism industry is capable to experience the effect of an improvement in local medical service, a reinforcement of competitiveness in related industry, a rapid increase in local absorption of demand of medical science overseas, expanding inducement of overseas patient, and excessive employment. Thus, in the enterprises point of view, it is necessary to capture niche market under the differentiated strategy rather than simply providing low cost of service. Moreover, they should be able to cooperate and support in various fields and it is important for the government to participate in fostering medical tourism industry.
Regarding New & renewable energy, the government has to contribute to allocate urgent energy demand by operating ODA and fund for East Asia Climate Partnership (EACP) and Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI). On the other hand, in the non-government perspective, bio-energy technology cooperation, hydroelectric generation and water resource cooperation, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) will be considered.

 

Environmental problems are a universal concern, but in the case of Africa they are problems which are directly related to survival. In various ways, the environmental problems of Africa are affecting diverse sectors and are increasing poverty. This research defines 5 major environmental problems facing Africa and aims at looking into their realities; water shortage, desertification, deforestation, environmental pollution, and loss of biodiversity; all of which are directly related to poverty.
The first problem comes from water shortage. Almost half the population of Africa is suffering from life-threatening water shortage and even "Water Wars" between nations and ethnicities erupt constantly. The causes of water shortage in Africa are diverse as to their causes; from climate change and droughts to population growth, and lack of water storage infrastructure such as reservoirs and dams.
The second risk is the acceleration of desertification. Despite international efforts such as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), desertification in Africa is progressing rapidly and as a result many farmers are losing their pastures and arable land. As 70% of Africa’s population consists of farmers, they are vulnerable to damages resulting from desertification. There are concerns

A greater number of non-tariff barriers were recently adopted by major ASEAN nations in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008-9 compared to previously, with the majority being technical regulations such as TBT’s. The responses to TBT range from relatively easy adjustment by companies in Thailand to significant difficulties experienced by firms in Indonesia. It is important that corporations find ways to accommodate themselves to these TBTs, and the government, for its part, needs to be active in drawing attention to TBTs in order to provide firms with accurate information on TBTs. In addition, Mutual Recognition Agreements between countries or MOUs concerning certification periods of different countries should receive strategic consideration.
Also cited as major impediments for companies were non-tariff barriers resulting from increases in trade remedy measures such as safeguards and antidumping/ countervailing measures, import licenses and strengthening of importing procedures that create difficulties with respect to customs, institutional loopholes such as subjective classification of HS codes. Along with encouraging firms to be outspoken about trade remedies, it is also necessary that official channels be established that would enable smaller firms to convey their opinions to countries concerned. The problems related to customs can be effectively dealt with if institutional system such as the ASEAN Single Window mechanism, to be established by 2015, is utilized actively. Institutional loopholes warrant careful assessment at the government level, followed by negotiation with the government of that country to remedy them.
When the Ad-Valorem Equivalents (AVEs) of NTBs against its small cars, one of Korea’s major export items, were approximated, the import licenses found in Malaysia had a AVE value of almost 0%; whereas AVE of Philippine’s import ban on smaller used cars was extremely high at 127%. The figures for technical regulations and quantitative restrictions such as tighter import procedures and pre-shipment inspection for hot rolled steel plate and tin plates produced in Indonesia, were relatively high at 29.5% and 35.9%, respectively. Depending on the country or item, the AVE exists at both extremes, from close to 0% to 127%. The most affected were products with high price elasticity, exhibiting more a greater import reduction effect as a result of NTBs.
The implications that can be drawn from the current situation and assessment of NTBs in ASEAN are as follows. First, it is imperative that a broad database on NTBs for ASEAN and Korea’s other major export destinations be established with a variety of encouragement measures from the government for its utilization. Second, a recognition of the fact that the government’s efforts to remove NTBs in ASEAN will facilitate exports by small and medium-sized firms is warranted. And as NTBs are increasing for a variety of products (such as newspaper printing paper, cardboard, used cars), the government should maintain focus on those items as well. Third, bilateral negotiations or pursuing FTAs would be a better option for dismantling NTBs of individual ASEAN countries, as opposed to utilizing the Korea-ASEAN FTA Implementation Committee, held only once or twice every year. Fourth, given that UNCTAD is investigating Korea for possible NTBs, and that the organization would list the results in a freely accessible database (TRAINS), Korea must effect a plan to prepare itself for potential demands for removal of NTBs in the future.

South Asia including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan Maldives account for 23% of world population in 2009 and reached average 8.2% of GDP rate from 2004 to 2008. Furthermore, South Asia is expected to grow at above 5% by 2030 which growth faster than ASEAN so that Its GDP proportion accounts for 7.8% as well.
South Asia is pursuing more aggressive trade policies for economic growth and development and especially, focusing on FTA with other countries such as S. Korea and Japan, EU that completed or under the process of negotiation, etc. In addition, economic integration of South Asia is also being advanced in gradual and scheduled to use single tariff among South Asia countries in 2016. This trend would be more obvious by removing high trade cost and improving trade facilitation, building infrastructure which enhancing bother connectivity. Moreover, strong will of South Asia countries for economic integration would play a role for easing political conflicts and tension between countries.
The direction and strategy of Trade policy for South Asia should be in line with international economy policy and New Asia Foreign Policy of Korea. So, several core policies are suggested such as expanding FTA network, enhancing energy and resource, green growth cooperation, bilateral and multilateral trade cooperation, facilitating investment and development. Especially, for FTA with South Asia, following three fundamental strategies should be based: market preoccupancy strategy, progressive FTA strategy, flexible FTA strategy. Further- more, FTA strategies and roadmap for FTA by countries are also suggested. Korea-Pakistan FTA should be targeted in 2014 in priority, and then Korea-Bangladesh, Korea-Sri Lanka FTA should be targeted in 2017 at the same time. In addition, Korea and SAARC FTA should be considered after 2016.

 This research presents four (4) questions related to expanding economic cooperation between Korea and Central America, and then suggests answers for each question. First, what are the changes that have occurred recently in Central American economy and what impacts will they have on relations with Korea? The Central American economy has shown rapid growth recently and pulled the region’s countries out from the ranks of least developed countries. As income levels grow, the consumer market expands and the region assumes greater importance as an investment and export destination. The ongoing economic integration within and outside Central America, which aims to generate economies of scale and to connect the region to the world market, makes Central America an ideal bridgehead for market expansion to other regions.
Second, various strategies employed by different countries have bolstered mutual cooperation with Central America. What were the strategies that were implemented and what are their implications? Cases involving the Unites States, EU, China, Taiwan and Japan are analyzed. The results state that the actual cooperation and strategies vary depending on the country. Political, diplomatic or security concerns (rather than economic) provided the base rationale for such strategies. In addition, the countries focused on utilizing official development assistance (ODA). The cases suggest that Korea must adapt a cooperation strategy that accords with its own needs and capabilities, as different countries cooperate for different reasons. The various countries’ reasons for cooperation are: security (US), diplomatic (China/Taiwan) and ODA (EU). The example most pertinent and applicable to Korea is the economic and diplomatic approach taken by Japan. But although Korea has been engaged in activities similar to Japan’s there is, as of yet, been no clear measures that can actually be termed a strategy.
The third question concerns obstacles for the expansion of commerce between Korea and Central America. To provide an answer, chapter 4 explains the trade, investment and institutional relations between the two. It should be noted that a survey was conducted to assess the achievements and limits of bilateral trade and investment. Although bilateral trade between Korea and Central America has increased dramatically, it is not significant as a proportion of total world trade. Moreover, the two parties are not taking full advantage of the competitiveness of their products. For example, though Korea's electrical and electronic equipments are very much competitive in the world market, their exports to Central America, however, is lower than expected. Central America, as a region, has competitiveness in a range of products such as agricultural products, raw materials, animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes, textile, rubber, paper, wood manufactures, etc. Nevertheless, products that are actively exported to Korea are limited to coffee, semiconductors and some raw materials.

 
 
This research aims to analyze the characteristics, potential, major projects and policies of Latin America’s plant construction industry and to suggest plans for broadening Korean participation. Especially, specific aspects of investment activities by foreign firms, such as financing methods, are studied in detail to render practical assistance for Korean enterprises.
This report consists of six (6) chapters. Following the introduction, chapter two conducts an in-depth analysis of five (5) sectors: plant construction industry power, petrochemical, refinery, water supply and sewage, and offshore structures. In addition, characteristics of plant construction industries in major seven (7) countries - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela - are included. The final chapter is a forecast of the development of Latin America’s plant construction industry based on data from international organizations and consulting firms. The results there state that the Latin American market will grow by 13.1% annually in the coming 5 years (2010-2014). Particularly, Argentina will be the fastest growing market followed by Colombia, Mexico and Peru. According to the empirical test, the average annual growth rate of major Latin American countries between 2008 and 2020 will be as follows: 7.1% in Peru, 6.3% in Chile, 4.5% in Mexico and Brazil and 3.5% in Argentina.
Chapter three outlines the background for the government’s ambitious agendas for the development of the plant construction industry and the main projects in each Latin American country. The rapid expansion of the Latin American market in this sector is derived from △stable economic growth △improved fiscal soundness and expanded government finance △increased need for infrastructure development △promotion of higher-value-added industrialization with natural resources. The major Latin American countries have planned and implemented government-led infrastructure development such as National Infrastructure Development Plan (PNI) in Mexico, the 1st and the 2nd Growth Acceleration Plan (PAC-1, PAC-2) in Brazil, Territorial Strategic Plan (PET) in Argentina, territorial development plan in Colombia and etc.
Chapter four examines the cases of how corporations from developed countries invested in Latin America’s plant construction market and draws implications for Korean firms, first by describing recent trends and characteristics of investment activity by global companies. The strategies of leading investors; including corporations from Italy, Spain and Japan, are analyzed in detail. Financing methods employed by major global and Korean firms receive special attention and are closely examined, eliciting implications for Korea.
Chapter five concerns the trend in investment activities of Korean firms and challenges in the world plant construction market, including Latin America. The difficulties of investment are presented, based on the survey of Korean firms that already invested or intend to invest in Latin America. They point out that the main obstacle involve language, which hinders the easy access to information and the paperwork, in addition to the demand for the greater use of local contents, and difficulty in financing due to the high country risks in Latin America.
Lastly, chapter six proposes ways to expand Korea’s participation in Latin America’s plant construction market at the firm level and the measures as to how the Korean government can support such activities. Some of the ways that can be employed by firms include △strategic alliance with local or global companies △a ‘Hub & Spoke’ strategy which selects a base country followed by diversification of investment into nearby countries, utilizing the cultural and linguistic proximity of Latin America △expansion of the network in Latin America by establishing the chamber of commerce and cooperation with related institutions △localization △entering the Latin American market by constructing the Korean firm’s local manufacturing plant followed by diversification, such as the acquisition of shares of local firms, M&A and targeting PPP projects and etc. In connection, various financing methods are suggested: utilizing Korean development banks, Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF) of the Korea Export and Import Bank, multilateral development banks such as the Inter American Development Bank (IDB) and a local development bank such as the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). At the government level, the following plans are proposed: △support for financing from Inter American Development Bank (IDB) △expand financing by the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF) and the Global Infrastructure Fund △establishment of labor database which systemically manages the work force for the plant construction industry in Latin America △signing FTAs with giant economies such as Brazil and Mexico which discriminates non-FTA signing country △building institutional infrastructure such as the Investment Protection Agreement and the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement △raising awareness of Korea and improving its image among locals through such activities as spreading of Korean Culture, holding the Korea Digital Festival, etc △linking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) together, and △establishment of the Brazil Business Center to find investment opportunity in plant construction market in Brazil and to provide necessary support.

The Korean-Russian economic relations began 20 years ago in 1990, when the diplomatic relations were established between the two countries. The Korea-Russia Far Eastern economic cooperation is one of the most important components of this history. Therefore, it would be meaningful analyze the 20 years of economic relations between Korea and Russian Far East in this context, and seek out mid-/long-term visions and action plans. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to suggest ways to push ahead with new cooperation projects on the basis of 20 years of bilateral cooperation and to greatly expand it.
This report consists of 6 chapters, opening with the introduction (chapter 1), followed by an overview and evaluation of the Federal Target Program “Economic and Social Development of the Far East and Transbaikalia until 2013” (2013 Program) and “Strategy for Socio-Economic Development of the Far East and the Baikal Region until 2025” (2025 Strategy) in Chapter 2. Also, the report outlines their accomplishments and limits, and shows policy implications of long-term development strategies for the Russian Far East. As the 2013 Program and the 2025 Strategy have secured much budget funding, and given the government's higher will to implement the strategy compared to past regional development programs, most of the projects specified and targeted in the two plans will likely be realized. Thus, the Republic of Korea should create a strategy to enter the Russian Far East, based on the “2025 Strategy”, which will be implemented in three stages.
Chapter 3 analyzes trade and investment relations of the Russian Far East with China, Japan, US, and EU; an issue just as meaningful and important for the Korean government in establishing its visions for entry into the Russian Far East and for its mid-/long-term cooperation strategy. This analysis shows that Northeast Asian countries are major trade partners and EU is an important investor for the Russian Far East. Also, we can elicit important implications for the Korean government, that is, for institutionalization of regular intergovernmental channels as well as establishing close private exchange. For instance, China is pushing for deeper cooperation with the Russian Far East in government, while the US and EU have drawn up the framework of cooperation in government while promoting practical cooperation in the private sector.
In Chapter 4, this study makes a comprehensive analysis of the business climate in the Russian Far East through surveys and interviews with local companies including Korean, Russian, and other countries. In particular, we examine the business performance of companies that entered the Russian Far East and their future business management strategies, and then suggest various and effective countermeasures to cope with the rapidly changing situation. According to the results of the analysis of the business climate of the Russian Far East, high production cost is the most serious problem for companies. Second most serious involves infrastructure–problems with electricity, water supply, transportation, and collection of payments have been pointed out. In addition, companies are being made to suffer administrative barriers such as bureaucratic red-tape. Yet many companies that have made inroads into the Russian Far East have taken various measures in response.
Chapter 5 assesses the accomplishments as a result of economic cooperation between Korea and the Russian Far East for the past 20 years in trade, investment, energy resources, and other sectors. Based on the results, we show the mid-/long-term vision for bilateral economic cooperation. Moreover, we evaluate the climate for economic cooperation between the two for the medium and long term, taking into consideration development strategies of the Russian government (Chapter 2), assessment of accomplishments from economic cooperation between the Russian Far East and major partner countries (Chapter 3), analysis of the business climate in the Russian Far East (Chapter 4), and evaluation of economic cooperation between Korea and the Russian Far east (Chapter 5. 1). This study reveals that there are several policy areas in cooperation; for instance, development of resources and energy, inter-industry cooperation to provide support for industry diversification, infrastructure development, and export market expansion; in the mid-/long-term vision of economic cooperation with the Russian Far East. Moreover, the study shows additional strategies for executing it successfully, such as a ‘package deal’ including high-tech cooperation(IT), the cross investment in both the upstream and downstream sectors, provision of advice based on Korea’s past industrialization experience and utilization of manufacturing competitiveness, etc. Also, these policies should be established and implemented in accordance with long-term regional development strategies being carried out by the Russian government, such as the “2025 strategy”.
As such, Korea should expand participation in the regional development of the Russian Far East and promote investment in the region. The factors that should be considered for that purpose are as follows: (ⅰ) active participation in transportation infrastructure projects; (ⅱ) to seek actively various ways to participate in the telecommunication infrastructure development and industrial modernization of the Russian Far East and East Siberia, along with regional telecommunication service projects; (ⅲ) promote energy resources cooperation; (ⅳ) to be involved in the construction of a petrochemical complex and port terminals in the region; (ⅴ) to push ahead with multilateral cooperation projects in the Far East; (ⅵ) take into consideration the high possibility of Korea-Russia FTA conclusions, which will be pivotal in Russia’s entry into the Northeast Asian economic block; (ⅶ) to utilize the “Korea Investment Fund” to support active investment and entry of Korean firm into the Russian Far East; (ⅷ) to maintain close relationships with local governments for a practical cooperation results. In addition, it is desirable that Korea and Russia prioritize existing and potential cooperation projects through maintenance of productive relationships in the “Far Eastern Siberian Subcommittee between Korea and Russia” and “Korea-Russia Dialogue: KRD” and establish the “Korea-Russia Far East Cooperation Program”, with a specific project schedule and implementation plans.

 
 
Before the Eurozone debt crisis in 2010, the 10 years’ operation of the Eurozone has been evaluated to be a success. Since the launching of the single currency, euro in 1999, the economic stability of the Eurozone has been enhanced. During the economic recession around 2001, the financial sector of the Eurozone was relatively less problematic than the other countries. In addition, the current value of euro has risen within a decade. However, as the global financial crisis began in autumn 2008 and the global economy was in severe recession from the following winter, the Eurozone had to face the difficulty. During the first half of 2009, the Irish financial and fiscal status was at a dangerous stage and in early 2010 the Greek fiscal crisis even aroused doubt in the sustainability of the Eurozone. Consequently, Greece became the first Eurozone member to request for bailout funds, followed by Ireland, who once had been praised as the ‘Celtic tiger.’ These incidents gave rise to such scepticisms that it is difficult to sustain monetary integration amongst countries with distinct economic status.
This study reviewed the progress and the structural problems of the Eurozone. Chapter 2 looked through the historical process on the establishment of the Eurozone. The Eurozone should be estimated as a part of the 30 year’s long European integration, which is represented by the policy coordination for a single market and a single currency. Monetary integration is a natural outcome in order to secure the stability of exchange rate after the establishment of a single internal market. European monetary integration was possible only after intense negotiations between the member countries including the adoption of the Werner report in 1970 and the Snake system in 1972. Therefore, Chapter 2 discussed the roadmap to the adoption of euro and then reviewed the political stance of the countries which has not yet joined the Eurozone.
Chapter 3 focused on the optimum currency area (OCA) theory to determine the adequacy of forming an economic and monetary union (EMU). It cannot be denied that early OCA theory, of which concentrated more in its characteristics, had not been reflected in the actual European monetary integration. However, after 1990s, the OCA theory had its focus more on the advantages and costs that enabled providing further policy implications. Vigorous discussions on endogenous OCA allowed legitimacy in establishing an EMU. Despite the dominant opinions that the Eurozone did not fulfil the OCA criteria upon its establishment, the policy objectives of the member countries have developed to converge into the OCA criteria.
Chapter 4 analyzed the performance of euro in various areas, such as macroeconomic policy, trade and investment, labour and financial market and euro’s status as key currency. Euro has shown remarkable performances, though it has had some limits as a single currency. Euro has contributed considerably to convergence of inflation which had differed from country to country and to reducing interest rate. This has exerted positive influence on new investment and creating job, which had led to overall positive effect on European economies. After adopting euro, Eurozone members have had more trade and investment not only between them but also with non Eurozone countries. As national financial markets have become more integrated into the single European financial market, financial activities have become more efficient and protected from market fluctuation. Against this background, euro’s status has been enhanced in international economies as a key currency competing with US dollar.
Chapter 5 examined sovereign debt crisis in Southern European countries in 2010 and structural weakness of Eurozone as EMU. The debt crisis attributes to excessive budget deficit and government debt and chronic deficit in current account, but it is undoubtedly related to structural problems of Eurozone. By joining Eurozone, ‘peripheral’ countries in Eurozone have benefited from low cost of borrowing in international financial market. However, this benefit turned into bubble economies and excessive debt, because they could attract more capital than their economic fundamentals can support. The budgetary discipline based on Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) has been often neglected, not only by peripheral countries, but also by major economies such as Germany and France. This made European economies more vulnerable to external asymmetric shock and in consequence, they began to lose market confidence during the global economic recession. As a response to this rising problem, Eurozone members agreed to create the European Financial Stability Facility (EFCF) which can be used to support debt rescheduling of debt-ridden members.
Chapter 6 discussed EU’s policy response to Eurozone crisis and tried to withdraw policy implication for monetary cooperation in East Asia. Since the debt crisis in 2010, the EU has been reforming its economic governance system in the direction of reinforcing budgetary discipline rather than fiscal integration. This overhaul is hardly landmark decision but it represents a range of reforms that the EU has pushed for since early 2000. However, it is noteworthy that the EU begins to focus on external imbalance among its members and seek the method to correct it. The debt crisis has made more difficult the joining of the Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) into the Eurozone. In East Asia, there have been a lot of researches on how East Asian countries can benchmark the European monetary integration for their own monetary integration and cooperation. The debt crisis of the Eurozone revealed that it is very difficult to form and maintain the monetary union between countries with disparate economic structure and policy preference.
It is expected that the economic governance of the Eurozone will develop into two complementary directions. First, there will be efforts to reduce the disparity in budgetary and external balances between member countries. The ongoing reforms, such as ‘European Semester’ and tightened budgetary control based on SGP are the examples. Secondly, it is expected that the EU will introduce more ‘institutionalized’ risk management system in its economic governance. In historical perspective, when the European integration process encounter economic and political crisis, efforts have been made in the direction of increasing degree of its integration in most of cases. If Eurozone members agree to overcome the pessimistic perspective for the future of euro, it is expected that the next steps will be in expanding the EFSF and increasing effectiveness of the SGP.

 Regional trade among Korea, China and Japan has been increasing and their economic relationship has become more intimate as a result, which implies a deepening economic integration in progress among the three countries. However, the weight of their mutual intra-regional investment is very low as a proportion of their total foreign investment, meaning a strengthening of mutual, intra-regional investment among the three countries is indispensable, as it will help them to overcome differences in their political systems and integrate from the base production level up. In this study, FDI policies and current FDI status of Korea, China and Japan; especially mutual intra-regional investment among the three countries; are examined and obstacles to such investment are identified. Then, various policy suggestions for promoting mutual intra-regional investment are proposed.
The following are the summary of the FDI status of the three countries. First, China has been more actively engaged in FDI than Korea and Japan. Second, while China and Japan are actively utilizing an M&A type of FDI, Korea still focuses on the greenfield type. Third, North America is the main FDI target area for all three countries. While a relatively higher proportion of Korea FDI is geared toward China, China and Japan's FDI weight is tilted heavily toward Western Europe. Fourth, being the latecomer, China has the fastest FDI growth rate among the three countries. Furthermore, most of the mutual intra-regional investment among three countries is targeted for China while FDI to the other two has stayed at a very low level.

In today's international relations, there seem to be less wars and conflicts caused by ideological differences and confrontations in the past cold war system. Another new form of conflicts and confrontations mostly deriving from ethnic, tribal, and religious diversities within a boundary of each individual nation-state. There seems to be no exception with most of the Southeast Asian countries - except for Thailand - which shared a bitter experience of cruel colonial rule by Western powers. They also have serious internal problems such as intra-national conflicts based upon their own ethnic, religious, historical and economic peculiarities and diversities and increasing demands from separatist movement groups. In particular, the international community suspects that some of specific regional conflicts and separatist movements recently escalating in part of the Southeast Asian countries have kept a close connection with trans-national terrorist activities since the 9․11 terrorist attack occurred at the heart of the U.S. territory. Thus, members of the international community have tried to search various solutions to solve conflictual problems of these nations in the intra-national level as well as in the international and inter-regional level.
If so, what basically caused such separatist movement and regional conflicts occurring within these Southeast Asian countries? How have they developed historically? How have the ASEAN as a body for regional cooperation treated those impending problems and what is wrong with its treatment? What sort of role have the ASEAN been playing for controling and managing those problems? What are relevant alternatives that ASEAN finally chose to overcome such problems? Dealing with those questions, this study in a comprehensive scale analyzes separatist movement and regional conflicts occurring in the Aceh region of Indonesia, southern border of Thailand, southern area of the Philippines. By doing so, it will try to explore the historical background and evolving process and to find a way of managing and solving problems in a regional dimension. It will also make an effort to propose political and diplomatic implications that separatist movement and regional conflicts in the Southeast Asian region provides for Korea.
In reality, conflict is a phenomena in which a certain group consciously or unconsciously confronts with at least one or more groups by pursuing some goals incompatible with one another and thus both groups' interest and ideological identity collide. In particular it seems to be very important the way of solving and managing conflicts and confrontations between minority and majority in a nation-building process in which the import of nation building and state integration are often considered primary that means the integration of intra-national heterogeneity and the establishment of national identity as a nation state. Southeast Asian separatist movement and regional conflicts have considerably long historical backgrounds, seems to be never ended and very escalating, and repetition of dramatic violence and potential conflicts. As a result, not only domestic actors or contracting parties in conflict but also ASEAN who can play an important role as a regional cooperative body need to make more aggressive effort for intervention and mediation.
In Indonesia, one of the largest multi-ethnic nations among Southeast Asian countries, separatist movement began to take off since people Aceh, Papua, Maluku protested in opposition to Indonesia's declaration of independence in 1945. In particular, Aceh area had long been ruled by small-scale kingdoms and incessantly campaigned the resistance movement against Dutch colonialism. It had announced the independence of Negara Bagian Aceh(NBA) under the Islamic law, 'Sharia,' and launched its resistance movement against Indonesian government when Indonesian government declared Indonesia's subjugation of Aceh after its independence from Netherlands. Acehnese people led by Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM) began to start armed protest against central government when central government began to discriminate Aceh in economic distribution by buckling to natural gas exploitation business since 1974. However, Indonesian government brutally repressed Aceh separatist movement by taking a massive military operation in opposition to Aceh separatist movement. Especially the bloody suppression of Indonesian military against Aceh separatist movement in the 1998 democratization process was heavily criticized by international society since it costed numerous toll of dead and injured.
Though Kingdom of Thailand had never been colonized by Western powers until the end of the World War II, it does not necessarily mean that Thailand could easily and peacefully establish its modern form of nation-state. There existed numerous problems including the problem of ethnic minority and communist anti-government guerilla movement in its Northern mountain area, problems with ethnic discrimination and identity of Isanese people in its Northeast area, Islamic separatist movement in its Southern border area. In particular, Islamic separatist movement in its Southern border area started with the domination of contemporary Chakri dynasty since this area was by force amalgamated since the period of Kingdom of Sukhothai. From the 1930's, Pan-Thai nationalism began to be reinforced and thus Islamic identity in Southern border area was in peril. People in those areas launched their own resistance campaign against compulsory and violent integration policy undertaken by central government. They claimed Islamic law, Sharia-based separatism since the 1960's and organized Barisan Nasional Pembebasan Patani (BNPP) and Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO) in order to commit armed protest. Central government responded to their armed protests with powerful and brutal military repression. Separatist movements in these areas began to be toned down when Thai government adopted flexible engagement policy with the advent of the semi-democracy period in the 1980's. However, Thai nationalism once again reinforced when Thai Rak Thai Party and prime minister Thaksin seized power in 2001. Especially international community began to criticize again the Thai government immediately after Thai government brutally crashed a series of violent uprisings in southern border areas and caused large-scale or small-scale casualties.
The Philippines has also experienced some separatist movements such as communist guerilla activities in northern mountain area and separatist movement in southern Islamic area since its establishment of independent nation state in 1946. In particular, Islamic separatist movement in southern area was closely related to various resistance activities for the protection of Islamic identity based upon Sharia, which is Islamic law, since the past Spanish and American colonial rule. Such separatist movement began to spread out when central government decided to reinforce immigration policy for outsiders in pursuit of national integration. Muslim Independence Movement that began to be wider spreaded with the event of ‘Jabidah’ stared its armed protest by organizing Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) when F. E. Marcos tightened his authoritarian rule. It was once momentarily stopped when the peace agreement that allowed Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was signed. However, Moro Islam Liberation Front (MILF) and Abu Sayyaf continued fighting against central government and thus separatist conflicts has lasted so far. In particular, the Philippine government stipulated their movements as terrorist activities and has been proceeding coalitional operations with the U.S. miliary since the 9.11 terrorist attack against the U.S. in 2001 and thus such a hard-line policy caused innocent casualties and serious violations of human rights in those areas.
Though large- and small-scale separatist movements and regional conflicts had been proliferated in the Southeast Asian region, ASEAN has yet taken a substantive humanitarian intervention policy or mediatory effort in order to manage human rights problems and conflict resolution. it results not only from a unique ‘ASEAN’ way of decision-making and non-intervention principle over domestic issues among member states, but also from the peculiarity of Southeast Asian countries that each country sensitively react with sovereignty-related matters. The weakness of the degree of institutionalization and the absence of compelling force not only cause intra-regional separatist movements and regional conflicts but also regional cooperation and integration among and between ASEAN member states in various issue domains. However, ASEAN recently began to change its policy from non-intervention principle to 'constructive intervention' or 'flexible engagement' over domestic issues. In particular, various types of intra-regional civic organizations started to reinforce the so-called 'engagement as the second track' in conjunction with human rights issue, human security, or regional development issue after intra-regional economic cooperations precipitously increased by ASEAN Free Trade Agreement.
As a consequence, a mission for the resolution of all the problems caused by separatist movements and regional conflicts in Southeast Asian countries and the establishment of intra-regional peace and stability in the dimension of conflict management become a preliminary mission for new regional cooperation between ASEAN and East Asian countries. In particular, since Southeast Asian countries tend to avoid intervention and coordination committed by superpower or external power because most of separatist movements and regional conflicts in Southeast Asian region was derived from their historical peculiarities inherited from their bitter experience of colonial rule in the past, mediation and coordination by the third-party country like Korea that shared same historical experience could be more effective. Korea has reinforced economic exchange and cooperation with Southeast Asian countries since the approval of 'Korea-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement' in 2007. Considering the 'New Asia Plan' announced by Korean government in 2009, Southeast Asian region was regarded as top-priority region in its policy-making. Therefore, based upon Korean experiences of economic development and conflict management as a divided nation, and the recent expansion of ODA (Official Development Asistace), Korea must actively participate in all the activities for relieving regional conflicts and reinforcing regional cooperations in Southeast Asian region.