Delegates attending the Regional Security Forum
on the sidelines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean)'s annual
ministerial meeting in Vientiane on July 26, 2016. Photo: AFP
The
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) has again come under criticism,
this time for failing to refer in a joint communique to the recent judgment by
the Permanent Court of Arbitration on competing claims in the South China Sea.
Cambodia
has been singled out as the Asean member which blocked consensus during the
Asean foreign ministers’ meeting in Laos.
In
contrast, the United States and its principal allies in the region — Japan and
Australia — issued a joint statement openly chiding China for its reclamation
and military activities in the contested seas, and called on Beijing and Manila
to abide by the tribunal ruling which invalidated China’s expansive claims in
the strategic waterway.
In view
of these developments, some observers have voiced concerns about Asean unity
and its capacity to act on key security issues, called for action against the
Hun Sen government and suggested changes be made to the decision-making process
in Asean so that statements can be issued even without the agreement of all 10
members.
But on
many counts, the widespread criticisms of Asean are wrong-headed.
Asean, in
fact, reached a good compromise in a difficult situation. What it has done has
helped the situation more than if, as critics wish, the group had issued a
statement that was harsh on China. Here’s why.
First,
Asean’s statement was not silent on the South China Sea issue.
It
contained references to key principles such as preserving freedom of navigation
and overflight, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, and urged for a
binding code of conduct to manage the South China Sea issue.
In
another statement issued after the group’s dialogue with China, there was a
call to “peacefully solve territorial disputes through negotiation in
accordance with international laws, including the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea”.
While
there was no explicit mention of the court decision, let no one doubt that a
message was delivered to Beijing — clearly, even if not loudly. This is the
essence of quiet diplomacy — a tool that Asean has traditionally used, and with
better effect on this occasion than just weeks ago when the two sides met in
Kunming.
What
would a stronger statement achieve? The criticism voiced by the US and its
allies has been met with outright rebuttal by China. Beijing has now announced
joint patrols with Russia.
The US
will continue with its freedom of navigation patrols. But this tactic depends
not on the force of principle, but the force of the American naval presence. If
Asean had voiced similar protests without military heft, its words might risk
sounding hollow.
ROOM TO
MANOEUVRE
Second,
the primary responsibility to deal with the issue lies with China and the
Philippines, which brought the case to the court. Consider how Manila
responded.
In the
past, when Asean was stymied from siding with the Philippines against China, the
previous Aquino government openly expressed disappointment. On this occasion,
Manila more readily accepted the group stance.
Being
somewhat detached from the court proceedings undertaken by his predecessor,
President Rodrigo Duterte has an opportunity for a new approach to reach a
compromise. Trumpeting the court decision too stridently might not help but
rather hinder flexibility.
Much also
depends on the attitude of Beijing towards negotiations, coming after a court
decision that it did not expect and now derides.
Given
domestic expectations, no Chinese leader can be seen to be weak and capitulate
to Asean, let alone the Philippines.
In this
setting, Asean’s statement gave space for the two governments to manoeuvre
towards potentially more conciliatory positions.
Asean
processes are far from perfect and, even with the Asean Charter, there are gaps
and inefficiencies. But on what basis are there calls after these meetings for
Cambodia to be chastised or to change the consensus principle in Asean decision-making?
The
consensus approach helps to manage the diversities and differences among the 10
members of the group. It gives assurance to small states that their views will
be taken into account. Another system for decision-making could be easily
dominated by larger countries.
Those who
seek to understand and support Asean cannot call for unity when it suits them
and discard it when it doesn’t.
There is
a balance between wanting to preserve Asean unity and trying to make the group
better able to act on key issues.
Centrality
for Asean is often talked about but often not well understood. It is remarkable
that this group could convene key meetings when there are so many major powers
with interests in the region as well as other middle powers like India,
Australia and South Korea.
This role
demands that Asean does more than provide the venue and deal with logistics.
Centrality means that Asean must also be expected to set an agenda that
includes key and even sensitive issues, and steer substantive discussions.
The acceptance
and indeed trust of major powers is essential for this, and Asean needs to
maintain or even help build up trust among the different major powers.
To be
central, Asean must be a fair interlocutor on key issues but not take on an
adversarial tone. In this context, the approach Asean took in the last week is
not a signal of failure.
It was
rather a balance between many different considerations, including unity within
the group and maintaining the trust of so many different major powers.
Even as
some continue to urge stronger words and action, Asean must continue to seek to
strike that balance in new ways that are both principled and practical.
About the author: Simon Tay is chairman of the
Singapore Institute of International Affairs and Associate Professor at the
National University of Singapore Faculty of Law.
You can find older posts regarding ASEAN
politics and economics news at SBC blog, and older posts regarding health and healthcare at IIMS blog. I thank you.
