ndia-China RTA talks in "suitable time": Chinese envoy

March 10, 2008

China and India, the two Asian trading giants, will initiate negotiations for a Regional Trading
Arrangement (RTA) at a "suitable time", Chinese Ambassador to the country, Zhang Yan has
said.

China and India will work to expand mutual investment and initiate negotiations on RTA in a
suitable time, Zhang said in his first public address after taking over as Beijing's new envoy to
New Delhi.

In 2003, India and China established a Joint Study Group to examine the potential for economic
engagement between the two booming Asian giants. Further, a Joint Task Force has finalised its
report on the feasibility of an India-China Regional Trading Arrangement (RTA).

According to the feasibility report, an India-China (RTA) will be "mutually advantageous," a

joint declaration issued during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's maiden visit to China in
January had said.

"Against the backdrop of accelerating regional economic integration in Asia, the two sides agree
to explore the possibility of commencing discussions on a mutually beneficial and high-quality
RTA that meets the common aspirations of both countries, and will also benefit the region," it
said.

Speaking at a reception held last week in his honour by Unity International Foundation, a non-
governmental organisation, Zhang said he firmly believed that the rising of China and India
economically will not only benefit the people of the two countries, but would also contribute to
the peace, stability and prosperity of Asia and the whole world.

China targets $60 billion trade with India by 2010: According to Zhang Van, China hopes to
meet an ambitious target of $60 billion of bilateral trade with India by 2010, Speaking at a dinner
meeting organised by Unity International Foundation last week, Mr Zhang said, “Sino-Indian
relations have been progressing on the fast track in all spheres. The two sides pledged to promote
building a harmonious world of durable peace and common prosperity through developing
'Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity'."

The meeting was attended by the Kerala Governor, Mr RL Bhatia, former Governor Mr Bhisma
Narain Singh, Ambassadors of Germany, Mr Jordan, Tunisia and the Arab League, besides the
general secretary of the foundation, Mr RN Anil.

Mr Bhatia said India’s relations with China were based on the principles of ‘Panchsheel’. The
two countries have shown determination to further enhance their ties in all sectors.

Mr Bhisma Narain Singh and Mr Anil also spoke of strong bilateral ties between the two
countries. They appreciated Unity International’s contribution towards strengthening relations
between the two neighbouring countries.

Commerce to the fore for Delhi and Beijing

By Pallavi Aiyar

BEIJING - When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

visits China next week, he will be accompanied by a 25-
odd member business delegation comprising the big guns
of India Inc from a range of manufacturing and information
technology sectors.

Four hundred members of China's business and

government community will gather at a January 14 summit
in Beijing, organized by the China Council for the
Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), to meet with
these captains of Indian industry. Ideas will be exchanged
for diversifying the economic engagement

across the Himalayas. A few business deals will also be

signed.

The highlight of the meeting will be an address by

Manmohan, who is expected to spell out his vision of the
potentially formidable trade and investment relationship
between two of the world's fastest-growing economies. The
Indian premier's message will likely emphasize the
necessity of developing a multi-faceted bilateral
engagement, away from a one-dimensional focus on the
two countries' border disputes.

In line with the recent stress on commerce rather than

conflict, Manmohan will underline the significance of
Mumbai and Shanghai, as much as New Delhi and Beijing,
in determining the contours of Sino-Indian ties going
forward.

Over the past few years, border negotiations have been

limping along, but bilateral trade has been racing ahead.
Between January and November 2007, Sino-India trade
surged 53% over the same period a year earlier to
US$34.23 billion. Trade between the neighbors jumped
33.8% from 2005, and 37% that year from 2004.

When the last Indian prime minister to travel to China, Atal

Bihari Vajpayee, made his visit to Beijing in June-2003,
the total volume of bilateral trade was $5 billion.

At the time, other than minor trading activity, economic

links across the border were negligible. In the five years
since, some 100 Indian companies established a presence
in China, and Indian banks, industry associations,
consultancies and even a law firm have set up shop to
facilitate burgeoning business ties.

However, several question marks threaten to push through

this rosy surface. Apart from India's long-term concerns
over the composition of its exports to China, which
primarily comprise low-value primary products, a
widening trade deficit is causing furrowed brows in New
Delhi. While in 2004 the balance of trade was in India's
favor to the tune of $1.7 billion, by 2006 this had turned to
a deficit of $4.12 billion. By November of last year, the
deficit had further broadened to over $9 billion.

In an interview to The Hindu in mid-2007, India's

ambassador to China, Nirupama Rao, stressed that a trade
deficit with China was "tolerable only for a finite period",
beyond which the risk of seeing a "positive of the
[bilateral] relationship assuming negative tones" ran high.

Chinese trade officials say that an Indian trade deficit is

likely to continue for the foreseeable future. "Unless
Indians make a much more concerted effort to sell in the
Chinese market, the Chinese surplus will continue," says
Wang Jinzhen, secretary general of CCPIT.
One possible solution, according to Wang, is the early
negotiation of a regional trade agreement (RTA) between
the two countries, something the Chinese have
aggressively been pushing for in recent years.

Wang points to the fact that China has already concluded

or is in the process of finalizing about 15 free trade
agreements (FTAs) with 29 countries and regions. He gives
the example of the Sino-Chilean FTA as an illustration of
the mutual economic benefits such agreements purportedly
bring for bilateral trade. "Within a year of the FTA with
China, Chile increased its exports to China by 100 %," he
says.

A joint task force set up by India and China to study the

feasibility of an RTA will make public its
recommendations during Manmohan's visit to Beijing. It is
widely expected to suggest deferring implementation of
any RTA while not ruling it out altogether.

The suggested go-slow on the RTA is primarily the result

of concerns among Indian business leaders. In India,
lingering insecurities about Indian industry's
competitiveness vis-a-vis the might of China's
manufacturing are coupled with suspicions of the lack of
transparency in Chinese pricing and accounting systems.

India is thus reluctant to grant China market economy

status (MES), a first step towards the negotiation of an
RTA. Currently, India is a leading initiator of anti-dumping
cases against China. Were New Delhi to grant MES to
China, it would mean that India would compulsorily have
to accept pricing figures supplied by Beijing, leading to
fears of large-scale dumping of Chinese products.

Harpreet Puri, the founder and head of Business Links, a

China-based Indian consultancy, argues that the best way
ahead is to stagger a potential RTA, restricting it to certain
commodities rather than implementing a full-blown
agreement all at once.

He is of the opinion, however, that the emphasis during

Manmohan's visit should be on boosting cross-border
investments, rather than on trade alone. "India's trade
deficit is likely to continue for some time and so it is really
important to make investments rather than trade the
foundation of the relationship," he says.
Although a gradual beefing up of investments across the
Himalayas has taken place, they remain meagre. For
example, since 2006, Puri's consultancy alone has helped
bring in a $60 million investment from wind energy
company Suzlon and an additional $50 million from
Everest Kanto Cylinders. However, actual Indian
investment in China until March 2007 stood at a mere $178
million (although contractual investment is valued higher,
at $565 million).

Chinese investments in India are also less than weighty,

with fewer than 50 Chinese companies known to have set
up offices there. According to the Indian government,
foreign direct investment inflows to India from China
between August 1991 and December 2006 worked out to a
grand total of $3.61 million. Even the higher Chinese
figure of about $17 million for actual investments is
unimposing.

When Chinese President Hu Jintao visited New Delhi in

November 2006, the two countries signed a bilateral
investment protection and promotion pact. Since then,
there has been an upswing in Chinese investments south of
the border, particularly in the area of infrastructure and
other project implementation.

However, CCPIT's Wang explains how lack of information

in China about investment and market conditions in India,
coupled with India's stringent labor laws and poor
infrastructure, don't yet make it an obvious choice for
Chinese investors.

Moreover, although the upgrading of economic ties is

expected to take some of the heat off the simmering issues
of bilateral political contention, such as the disputed
border, continuing political suspicions work against
unfettered economic engagement.

Thus, New Delhi has for long stymied Chinese investments

in certain sectors, such as telecommunications and port
development, on the grounds that particular Chinese
companies pose a security threat.

Aviation is the latest sector to be affected negatively by

political concerns. The Indian government is blocking the
entry of Chinese cargo carrier Great Wall Airlines to
Mumbai and Chennai, reportedly due to the fact that key
nuclear facilities are located near these two airports. New
Delhi's suspicions spring from the fact that one of the
former owners of the airline in question - China Great Wall
Industry Corporation - was blacklisted by the US for
alleged transfer of missile technology to Iran.

In a retaliatory measure, Beijing has blocked India's Jet

Airways' plans to fly to Chicago via Shanghai.

Sino-Indian economic ties are in fact still in a take-off

phase. In January-November 2007 the share of Indian
exports in overall Chinese imports was a mere 1.46 %. In
the same time period India was only China's 10th-largest
export destination and the 15th-largest exporter to China.

This is thus crunch time for identifying and developing

mechanisms to manage the bilateral economic relationship
in such a way as to minimize potential friction and
maximize mutual self interest.

Manmohan has the opportunity to use the business summit

in Beijing to move beyond the now cliched niceties of
touting hardware/software collaboration and instead
address head-on the challenges of promoting cross-border
economic ties in all their thorny complexity.

Sino-India RTA analysed

N Chandra Mohan
Posted: 2008-01-16 21:38:29+05:30 IST
Updated: Jan 15, 2008 at 2153 hrs IST

Font Size

Print

Feedback
Email

Discuss

: India's burgeoning trade deficit with China—that touched $10 billion in 2007—has caused
edginess in India Inc with regard to ongoing negotiations to ink a bilateral regional trade
agreement. In the ‘Shared Vision of the 21st Century’ that PM Manmohan Singh signed with his
Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao during his maiden visit to Beijing on January 14, both asked
their respective commerce ministers to examine the benefits of an RTA. A joint feasibility study
indicates that it would be mutually advantageous.
Is it, in fact, so advantageous? Simply put, India Inc’s concerns are that the bilateral deficit
reflects the dragon’s non-transparent pricing mechanism and massive hidden subsidies. The
Chinese yuan is also undervalued. For such reasons, India has been reluctant to grant market
economy status so far to China, which is a necessary building block for an RTA. The fear is that
if it is granted, India will have to accept China’s pricing numbers that can result in further
dumping of cheap Chinese goods into India that would hurt local businesses unfairly.
Research by Sandra Polaski of the US-based Carnegie Endowment along with A Ganesh Kumar,
Scott McDonald, Manoj Panda and Sherman Robinson indicates, interestingly, that India would
benefit more from a multilateral trade agreement at the WTO than from bilateral agreements with
countries like China, the US and EU. Although the gains of an accord at Doha are admittedly
modest—India’s real income would increase by only $1.2 billion—it is still six times more than
the gain from the most beneficial bilateral agreement among these three nations. This is why
India has a big stake in Doha’s success.
According to this work, China gains more in real income from the free trade agreement than does
India: the former has a $940 million gain when compared with the latter’s gain of $110 million.
This is driven almost entirely by India’s elimination of manufacturing tariffs. However, a silver
lining is that India sees a greater increase in its exports ($710 million) than does China ($220
million). Moreover, China’s imports increase by $770 million when compared with India’s
increase of $480 million. As such increases are less than under other bilaterals, the overall gains
for the Indian economy are much less. Therefore, it would be in India’s interests to root for a
multilateral deal.

DIFFERENT TRADE BLOCKS

EUROPEAN UNION
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

OPEC MEMBER COUNTRIES

Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovak Republic, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America

COMMONWEALTH MEMBER COUNTRIES

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize,
Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji Islands,
The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho,
Malawi, Malaysia Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New
Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and
the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United
Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia

NATO MEMBER COUNTRIES

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, uxembourg, Netherlands, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom,

United States of America

SAARC MEMBER COUNTRIES

Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

OPEC MEMBER COUNTRIES

Founder Member: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela
Full member: Qatar, Libya, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Nigeria
Associate member: Gabon

EFTA MEMBER COUNTRIES

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United
Kingdom

APEC MEMBER COUNTRIES

Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong,
China, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,

Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese

Taipei, Thailand, United States of America, Vietnam

ASEAN MEMBER COUNTRIES

Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam

NAFTA MEMBER COUNTRIES

Canada, Mexico, United States of America

ANDEAN COMMUNITY
Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela
CARRIBEAN COMMUNITY
Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana,
Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago

MERCOSUR / MERCOSUL COUNTRIES

Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay

SADC MEMBER COUNTRIES

Angola, Botswana, DR Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

BALTIC STATES, FORMERLY PART OF THE SOVIET UNION:

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
PACIFIC COMMUNITY / COMMUNAUTÉ DU PACIFIQUE
American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, France, French Polynesia, Guam,
Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue,

Northern Mariana, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn islands Samoa,

Solomon islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, UK, USA, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna

GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL MEMBER CONTRIES

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E.

ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WESTERN AFRICAN STATES - ECOWAS
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Ivory

Coast, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone,

Togo
ECOWAS HOME PAGE

COMESA MEMBER CONTRIES

Angola, Burundi, Comoros, D.R.Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland,
Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
COMESA - Welcome

THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF REGIONAL TRADE BLOCS

What are regional trading blocs?
Regional trade blocs are intergovernmental associations that manage and promote
trade activities for specific regions of the world.
Trade bloc activities have political as well as economic implications. For example,
the European Union, the world’s largest trading block, has “harbored political ambitions
extending far beyond the free trading arrangements sought by other multistage
regional economic organizations“ (Gibb and Michalak 1994: 75). Indeed, the
ideological foundations that gave birth to the EU were based on ensuring
development and maintaining international stability, i.e., the containment of
communist expansion in post World War II Europe (Hunt 1989). The Maastricht
Treaty which gave birth to the EU in 1992 included considerations for joint policies
in regard to military defense and citizenship. The decisions reached by development
policy makers on whether regionalism or globalized trade should be pursued may
influence a country’s earnings from trade.
Regionalism differs from globalization in the size and area of markets. From the
perspective of developing countries skeptical of free trade, regional trade blocs
offer some form of protection against an aggressive global market.

The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries,

committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended
to replace existing States, nor is it just an organisation for international cooperation.
The EU is, in fact, unique. Its member states have set up common institutions to
which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters
of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.

The historical roots of the European Union lie in the Second World War.
The idea was born because Europeans were determined to prevent such killing and
destruction ever happening again. In the early years, the cooperation was between
six countries and mainly about trade and the economy. Now the EU embraces 27
countries and 490 million people, and it deals with a wide range of issues of direct
importance for our everyday life.
Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with
shared values such as democracy, freedom and social justice. The EU defends these
values. It fosters cooperation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while
preserving diversity and ensuring that decisions are taken as close as possible to
the citizens.
In the increasingly interdependent world of the 21st century, it is more necessary
than ever for every European citizen to work together with people from other
countries in a spirit of curiosity, openness and solidarity.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) eliminated the majority of
tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada and Mexico, and
gradually phases out other tariffs over a 10-year period. Restrictions were to be
removed from many categories, including motor vehicles, computers, textiles, and
agriculture. The treaty also protects intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights,
and trademarks), and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the
three countries. The agreement is trilateral in nature (that is, the terms apply
equally to all countries) in all areas except agriculture, in which stipulations, tariff
reduction phase-out periods and protection of selected industries, were negotiated
on a bilateral basis. Provisions regarding worker and environmental protection were
added later as a result of supplemental agreements signed in 1992. NAFTA was an
expansion of the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988. NAFTA is a
treaty under international law, though under United States law it is classed as a
congressional-executive agreement rather than a treaty.
What is the North American Free Trade Agreement?
In January 1994, the United States, Mexico and Canada entered into the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), creating the largest free trade area and
richest market in the world. The NAFTA is the most comprehensive regional trade
agreement ever negotiated by the United States and is scheduled to be fully
implemented by the year 2008. In 1996, U.S. two-way trade in goods under the
NAFTA with Canada and Mexico stood at $420 billion--a 44 % increase since the
NAFTA was signed.

What are some of the key goals of the NAFTA?

• to reduce barriers to trade
• to increase cooperation for improving working conditions in North America
• to create an expanded and safe market for goods and services produced in North
America
• to establish clear and mutually advantageous trade rules
• to help develop and expand world trade and provide a catalyst to broader
international cooperation

Why should consumers care about the NAFTA?

U.S. consumers participate in international trade each day as they purchase goods
and services that cross international borders. Therefore, they are affected daily by
what they pay for the products and how safe they are.
Trade is considered "free" or "open" when goods and services can move into
markets without restrictions, and prices are determined by supply and demand.
Nations sometimes erect barriers to this free movement of goods and services, such
as quotas limiting the quantity of products imported, or non-tariff barriers, such as
registration or labeling requirements, that create obstacles to selling foreign goods.
These barriers can significantly increase the cost of the product.

Mercosur or is a Regional Trade Agreement (RTA) among Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay

and Paraguay, founded in 1991 by the Treaty of Asunción, which was later amended
and updated by the 1994 Treaty of Ouro Preto. Its purpose is to promote free trade
and the fluid movement of goods, people, and currency.
Mercosur/Mercosul origins trace back to 1985 when Presidents Raúl Alfonsín of
Argentina and José Sarney of Brazil signed the Argentina-Brazil Integration and
Economics Cooperation Program or PICE
Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru currently have associate member status.
Venezuela signed a membership agreement on 17 June 2006, but before becoming
a full member, its entry has to be ratified by the Paraguayan and the Brazilian
parliaments. The organization has a South and Central American integration
vocation.
The founding of the Mercosur Parliament was agreed at the December 2004
presidential summit. It should have 18 representatives from each country by 2010
Some South Americans see Mercosur as giving the capability to combine resources
to balance the activities of other global economic powers, especially the NAFTA and
the European Union. The organization could also potentially pre-empt the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); however, over half of the current Mercosur
member countries rejected the FTAA proposal at the IV Cumbre de las Américas (IV
Summit of the Americas) in Argentina in 2005. However, development of the Union
of South American Nations seems to suggest that the countries of South America
are not opposed to regional integration but merely wary of the United States-
backed FTAA.
The development of Mercosur was arguably weakened by the collapse of the
Argentine economy in 2001 and it has still seen internal conflicts over trade policy,
between Brazil and Argentina, Argentina and Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil, etc. The
free movement of individuals has been a matter of practical controversy,as
Argentina unilaterally charges a 5 Pesos fee from Mercosur citizens going through
the countryIn addition, many obstacles are to be addressed before the development
of a common currency in Mercosur
In December 2004 it signed a cooperation agreement with the Andean Community
trade bloc (CAN) and they published a joint letter of intention for a future
negotiations towards integrating all of South America. The prospect of increased
political integration within the organization, as per the European Union and
advocated by some, is still uncertain.
The bloc comprises a population of more than 263 million people, and the combined
Gross Domestic Product of the member nations is in excess of 2.42 trillion dollars a
year (PPP) according to World Bank numbers, making Mercosur the fifth largest
economy in the World.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established on 8 August

1967 in Bangkok by the five original Member Countries, namely, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined on 8
January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and
Cambodia on 30 April 1999.
The ASEAN region has a population of about 500 million, a total area of 4.5 million
square kilometers, a combined gross domestic product of almost US$ 700 billion,
and a total trade of about US$ 850 billion.

OBJECTIVES
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: (1)
to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the
region and (2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for
justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and
adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th Anniversary of
ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations,
outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in
partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies.
In 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be
established comprising three pillars, namely, ASEAN Security Community, ASEAN
Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.
STRUCTURES AND MECHANISMS
The highest decision-making organ of ASEAN is the Meeting of the ASEAN Heads of
State and Government. The ASEAN Summit is convened every year. The ASEAN
Ministerial Meeting (Foreign Ministers) is held annually.
Ministerial meetings on the following sectors are also held regularly: agriculture and
forestry, economics (trade), energy, environment, finance, health, information,
investment, labour, law, regional haze, rural development and poverty alleviation,
science and technology, social welfare, telecommunications, transnational crime,
transportation, tourism, youth. Supporting these ministerial bodies are committees
of senior officials, technical working groups and task forces.
To support the conduct of ASEAN’s external relations, ASEAN has established
committees composed of heads of diplomatic missions in the following capitals:
Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Canberra, Geneva, Islamabad, London, Moscow, New Delhi,
New York, Ottawa, Paris, Riyadh, Seoul, Tokyo, Washington D.C. and Wellington.

The Secretary-General of ASEAN is appointed on merit and accorded ministerial

status. The Secretary-General of ASEAN, who has a five-year term, is mandated to
initiate, advise, coordinate, and implement ASEAN activities. The members of the
professional staff of the ASEAN Secretariat are appointed on the principle of open
recruitment and region-wide competition.
ASEAN has several specialized bodies and arrangements promoting inter-
governmental cooperation in various fields including the following: ASEAN
Agricultural Development Planning Centre, ASEAN-EC Management Centre, ASEAN
Centre for Energy, ASEAN Earthquake Information Centre, ASEAN Foundation,
ASEAN Poultry Research and Training Centre, ASEAN Regional Centre for
Biodiversity Conservation, ASEAN Rural Youth Development Centre, ASEAN
Specialized Meteorological Centre, ASEAN Timber Technology Centre, ASEAN
Tourism Information Centre, and the ASEAN University Network.
In addition, ASEAN promotes dialogue and consultations with professional and
business organisations with related aims and purposes, such as the ASEAN-
Chambers of Commerce and Industry, ASEAN Business Forum, ASEAN Tourism
Association, ASEAN Council on Petroleum, ASEAN Ports Association, Federation of
ASEAN Shipowners, ASEAN Confederation of Employers, ASEAN Fisheries
Federation, ASEAN Vegetable Oils Club, ASEAN Intellectual Property Association,
and the ASEAN-Institutes for Strategic and International Studies. Furthermore, there
are 58 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which have formal affiliations with
ASEAN.