The
Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean) was once again hamstrung over
the weekend as it struggled to cobble together diplomatic language that could
reflect a variety of positions on the disputed South China Sea. The uncooperative
cog was Cambodia, a key ally of China, who objected to any mention of an
international court ruling against Beijing’s expansive claim in the disputed
waterway.
Ultimately,
Asean’s unity of purpose prevailed as foreign ministers on Monday issued a joint
communique calling for the peaceful resolution of disputes, including “full
respect for legal and diplomatic processes”.
But Asean
cohesiveness is bound to be tested again given the divergent positions among
the member states, especially between those concerned with Beijing’s growing
assertiveness in the regional maritime domain and those with close economic and
ideological ties with the world’s second-largest economy.
Some
observers have suggested dismissing Cambodia from the regional grouping so that
Asean can move forward on the South China Sea.
Since
2012, Cambodia has sorely tested Asean’s spirit of consultation and consensus.
That year, as Asean chair, it blocked the issuance of a foreign ministers’
joint communique as there was no agreement on the South China Sea. Over the
next few years, the Indo-Chinese nation has repeatedly thwarted Asean consensus
by advocating Chinese positions.
With
tensions running high over the South China Sea after Beijing refused to comply
with an international ruling on July 12 that invalidates its expansive claim,
Cambodia is again the renegade whose affiliation with China seems to be ruining
its relations with Asean.
There are
no existing provisions in the Asean Charter regarding the dismissal or
withdrawal of a member state, but the option may be raised again in the future
if the grouping cannot agree on divisive issues.
The
withdrawal scenario is not limited to the South China Sea, as smaller member
states can easily find themselves exposed to lobbying by major powers over
other geopolitical issues of the day. But will this move be ideal for Asean?
For Mr
Ong Keng Yong, Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large and former Asean
Secretary-General, it is a moot point.
“They
(Cambodia) will not leave because their non-Asean ‘sugar daddy’ wants them to
stay in Asean to be useful,” he told TODAY, referring to China. He believes it
is better to continue persuading and appealing to their sense of commitment to
Asean unity and integrity.
“There
are no punitive options. We just have to make the cost of political duplicity
very high for the errant members,” added Mr Ong, who is also the executive
deputy chairman of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
Cambodia’s
withdrawal from Asean is also unlikely to do the regional bloc any good.
Already, the grouping is struggling to remain united and relevant to
developments in the region.
Singapore’s
Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan wrote on Facebook that an inter-state
organisation consisting of very diverse sovereignties, like Asean, can operate
only by consensus. “Any other mode of decision-making will create stresses that
will tear the organisation apart,” he said.
RSIS
associate research fellow Henrick Tsjeng pointed out that Asean unity is
fragile. “At a time when Brexit is causing a lot of concern about the future of
the EU (European Union) as well as a crisis of confidence, such talk would only
heighten such fears of the same happening to Asean.”
Ejecting
countries deemed pro-China could push these states even closer to the East
Asian nation, and cause the remaining Asean countries to veer strongly towards
the US in response. Conversely, the opposite will occur if those that are
perceived as pro-US are ejected.
“Both
scenarios will result in Asean compromising its independence and neutrality as
well as a divided South-east Asia, which is not in the interests of Asean
member states or extra-regional countries,” he added.
Besides a
review of Cambodia’s membership, another option is to adopt the “Asean-X”
working method for difficult issues — an arrangement where some members can go
ahead to implement decisions, while those that need more time are given a more
flexible timeline.
For
instance, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam have been given flexibility to
abolish all tariffs by 2018 under the Asean Economic Community, while the other
member states had already done so by last year.
Professor
Jay Batongbacal, director of the Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the
Sea at the University of the Philippines, said during a seminar on the
implications of the Hague ruling that it may be time for littoral states in the
South China Sea to consider forming an Asean maritime bloc so that the grouping
can be effective on the issue even if there are disagreements among the member
states.
There are
no obstacles within Asean to prevent member states with specific interests from
forming special and ad-hoc groupings, noted Prof Batongbacal at the seminar
organised by the Iseas-Yusof Ishak Institute on Monday.
He
pointed out that such a mechanism would not be unusual among Asean member
states, given that Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia had worked together to
enhance maritime security in the economically vital Straits of Malacca. In
addition, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are also working together to
tighten security in the waters off Borneo after a spike in kidnapping in the
area by extremist militants.
In fact,
the recent ruling by The Hague has shown clearly how the South China Sea should
be shared and these countries could use it as a basis for future cooperation,
he added.
“At this
point, it is obvious that it is very difficult to get Asean to unify around
(South China Sea) issues simply because political and practical realities
create different interests,” explained Prof Batongbacal. “Rather than to allow
this to break Asean every year (as the leaders and ministers meet), it is
better that we recognise that certain members of the bloc do have certain key
interests that are different from the rest.”
Asean as
an organisation is open enough to allow those with key interests to group
together — even if they are not acting as a bloc — to act consistently, he
added.
But
despite the conveniences of the Asean-X formula, member states have been
judicious about bringing it into play, as excluding certain member states and
sidelining their national interests could harm regional unity in the long run.
As
Ambassador Ong put it: “It is not possible to have Asean-X because the
principle must be first accepted by all Asean member states and the errant
parties will not sign their own death warrant.”
Ms Moe
Thuzar, a lead researcher at the Asean Studies Centre in the Iseas-Yusof Ishak
Institute, pointed out that there have been instances “where the recalcitrance of
one member state has occasioned exasperated expressions from other members
about the level of commitment to Asean”.
Myanmar
used to be that recalcitrant member. Today, it is Cambodia, she said, adding:
“So, the ball is in Cambodia’s court to shape up.”
If
Cambodia fails to play ball with Asean, the grouping’s unity is sure to be
further tested over the South China Sea issue in the lead-up to the Asean
Summit in Vientiane in September.
Albert
Wai
No comments:
Post a Comment