On behalf of my ASEAN colleagues, it is my honour and pleasure to welcome our colleagues from Australia, Canada, the European Community, Japan, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and the United States to the 1993 ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conferences in Singapore.

It is nineteen years since ASEAN established its first Dialogue partnership with Australia in 1974. We have come a long way since. We now have seven Dialogue Partners. We have three Observers - Vietnam, Laos and Papua New Guinea. We have also established consultative relations with China and Russia.

In 1974 the world was in the grip of the Cold War. Politically, America led the West against the Soviet bloc. Economically, the North-South divide placed the Western industrialized nations squarely on one end of the economic scale, and the developing countries of the Third World on the other end. Then, the priority of the putative Third World was the more equitable distribution of global wealth.

Today, the distinctions and priorities which seemed crystal-clear some twenty years ago, are less clearly defined. The characterisations - of a Third World, together with a First World and a Second World - and of the division of the world into the North and the South - are beginning to look somewhat diffused in this post-Cold War period. Some of the developing countries in the Third World have managed to build strong industrial bases. They are today enjoying relatively high per capita incomes. These include the NIEs and emerging NIEs of Asia. For illustration, in 1974, the average per capita GNP of ASEAN was about US$275. Today it is about US$1,142.

Today, the policy choices confronting us are more complex. Economically, it is no longer simply a question of aid and development assistance - literally the "bread-and butter" issues of twenty years ago. Today, the demands of the NIEs and the emerging NIEs are trade, market access and investment.
At the same time, adverse changes are taking place in the world economy that are affecting the industrialized nations, including some of our Dialogue Partners. They have been hit by the global recession and trade problems. In Europe and in North America, domestic economic and social issues top the national agenda. Their priorities are changing, as is their capacity to take the lead in global economic issues such as the Uruguay Round of GATT.

The settled patterns of the Cold War are disintegrating. Today, the relationships among the players in the Asia-Pacific are undergoing change. It is no longer sufficient to choose between one side or another. The simple Cold War bipolar model of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union obviously no longer holds. But it is not quite a unipolar world. In the Asia-Pacific, the regional dynamic is defined by many players competing for influence - economic and political. They are guided not by the ideological parameters of the Cold War, but by their own national interests.

Perhaps only one thing has not changed these past twenty years. While mutually-assured destruction may have prevented a nuclear armageddon, nuclear proliferation remains a real threat to global security. Maybe even more so in the post-Cold War world. It is in our common interest and it is our common responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We should work together on nuclear non-proliferation.

'Today, while the international community increasingly turns towards the United Nations to keep the peace, the United States continues to be the key global player.

America is part of the Asia-Pacific. Peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific depend not only on whether the United States continues to lead as she has in the past. It also depends on how America settles her relationships with other major powers - Russia, China and Japan. In other words, how the United States' foreign policy evolves in the post- Cold War world will have a direct bearing on all of us. It is in America's interest to remain engaged in the region. In turn, it is in our interest to do what we can to create conditions to ensure that the Americans see that their future is tied to that of the Asia-Pacific.

The situation in Russia and the other states of the former Soviet Union continues to give cause for anxiety. Severe domestic economic problems and ethnic conflict threaten instability in a region that was once the second global superpower. Instability in Russia will affect us, not least because more than half the world's nuclear arsenal is there. The United States is proposing to forge a new relationship with Russia as the backbone of a new East-West strategic alliance. If this will help stabilize the situation, then it deserves our support.

China will transform into an economic superpower within two generations. Her economic strength will give China a global political influence. China's strategic importance is no longer that of simply being a balancer between the Soviet Union and the United States. Today, China is a global and regional player in her own right. It is in the Asia- Pacific's interest that China plays a constructive role in the region within a political and economic framework. Therefore, China should be given a stake in the system which will tie her future to the future of the rest of the Asia-Pacific.

Japan's enormous trade surpluses make her vulnerable to pressures by other countries to correct this imbalance. The pressures on Japan carry with them two risks: First, the temptation to adopt protectionist policies to leverage Japan to open up her economy. Second, exacerbating tensions between Japan and the United States. It is not in our interest to see either of these things happening.

These political realities of the post-Cold War world are changing the political relationship among equals - a true partnership. It should be a partnership that does not only focus on shorter-term and narrow issues of functional cooperation and development assistance. It should be a mature relationship that is also aimed at developing frameworks and processes for dialogue and consultation. These in turn will provide avenues for promoting areas of common interest, and when necessary avenues for resolving difficulties and differences. APEC is one such process. The PMC process, recently enhanced through the holding of the first PMC Senior Officials Meeting is another. It should be a forward-looking partnership that seeks to strengthen conditions for peace and stability and economic growth not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the larger Asia-Pacific.