ASEAN – Unresolved issues could undermine the future of the Association
for PlanetNext
On May 8 of this year, the 18th ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) summit ended with an agreement on three joint statements: making the ASEAN Community a Global Community of Nations, establishing the ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation, and enhancing cooperation against trafficking in persons in Southeast Asia. It also established a few new goals: from the aim of hosting the 2030 football world cup to working on a future Free Trade Area with the European Union. Apart from promises and hand-shaking, at the end of the summit, hosted and chaired by Indonesia, several significant issues remained unresolved. Among them, the conflict and border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand and the possibility for Myanmar to chair the Association in 2014.
The ten members decided to issue a declaration on the ASEAN Community in A Global Community of Nations next October at the 19th ASEAN summit. The declaration is meant to further promote a common platform on global issues ideally to be attained by 2022. They also pointed out the need for ASEAN to enhance its ability to ensure greater peace, security and stability in the region, including in conflict management and resolution. They specifically agreed to task their foreign ministers to work on modalities towards establishing an ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation and to submit their recommendations to the summit in Bali for its consideration.
The importance of creating “a non-governmental track to complement other instruments to prevent conflicts” points to some long festering issues within the Association, like the inability to resolve the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand. Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen and his Thai counterpart, Abhisit Vejjajiva, assisted by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, met on the sidelines of the summit. Both leaders stood firm in their antithetical positions during the one-hour meeting, which observers acknowledged was nothing less than a failure.
Despite the fact that ASEAN’s primary purpose since its founding, namely to promote peace and stability in Southeast Asia and establish norms and formal mechanisms for peaceful dispute settlements, has been incremental, the Association has repeatedly failed to respond to its internal crises.
ASEAN’s Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan admitted last week that the conflict had become “embarrassing” for ASEAN, which hopes to grow into a political and economic community on the model of the European Union by 2015. This awkward situation is well recognized by Asian leaders. “I accept that the issue could affect ASEAN’s credibility. We must make sure that any problem can be solved locally, bilaterally, and if needed, with help from the region,” Abhisit said according to a report in The Bangkok Post.
This statement draws attention to some critical points: Thailand wanting to solve the issue “locally and bilaterally”, indicates that there is no trust among the ten members of the Regional Dispute Settlement Mechanisms, as also noted by Mutiara Pertiwi, an ASEAN expert at the State Islamic University of Jakarta. Furthermore, in recent months, Prime minister Hun Sen and his government have appealed both to ASEAN and the United Nations Security Council for assistance in resolving the conflict. The ASEAN Charter maintains member states’ right of recourse to the modes of settlement dispute listed in the United Nations Charter.
The Charter also establishes that the Chairman or the Secretary-General of ASEAN may be called upon to offer their services, in the form of conciliation or mediation, as President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono did as Chairman of the Association. Despite the flexibility and willingness shown by Yudhoyono, it is highly unlikely that the vision of a community will be realized by 2015 if the dispute between Cambodia and Thailand cannot be truly resolved by the end of Indonesia’s chairmanship. It is therefore more important for the Association to resolve internal issues before pursuing their goal of an ‘ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations’.
The second relevant issue that remained unsettled during the summit was the possibility of Myanmar assuming the one-year rotating ASEAN leadership. Based on alphabetical order, Laos should assume the role in 2014, but the Vientiane government had proposed it swap with Myanmar, so it could focus on ongoing domestic issues. Myanmar was due to assume the rotating position in 2005, but the plan was aborted after the United States and the European Union threatened to boycott ASEAN meetings over the country’s abysmal human rights record.
This time ASEAN’s leaders did not object to the proposal in principle but, as President Yudhoyono stated, “Myanmar, which is a focus of world attention, is expected to continue progress on democracy.” Singapore commented that Myanmar would be better prepared for chairmanship if it waited until 2016, following Malaysia, although the summit concluded with ASEAN members supporting Myanmar’s request in principle “in view of its firm commitment to the principles of ASEAN.”
This decision was strongly criticized by western-based human rights organizations. “This is unfortunately a decision of political convenience over political principle, and indicates once again that human rights is not a priority for ASEAN,” said Phil Robertson, Human Rights Watch’s deputy Asia director. Before the summit, in a recorded speech played during the opening of the ASEAN Civil Society Conference, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Suu Kyi called on the leaders and people of ASEAN to help push for democracy in Myanmar.
A Burmese Chairmanship of ASEAN could increase criticism, provoke strong protests from Western governments and complicate efforts by ASEAN to work more closely with the US and the European Union. But the past weeks seem to have revealed different approaches. The desire for greater trade links between the two regional blocs was highlighted at an EU-ASEAN business summit in Jakarta before the ASEAN meeting. According to the European Commission, ASEAN as a whole represents the EU’s 3rd largest trading partner outside Europe (after the US and China) with more than €175 billion of trade in goods and services in 2010, while the EU is ASEAN’s 2nd largest trading partner after China, accounting for around 11% of ASEAN trade.
Although European leaders do not believe that the November election which opened the road to a civilian government in Myanmar was free and fair, the 27 EU members decided in April to soften economic sanctions and relax visa restrictions against a number of Burmese officials, including the new foreign minister, Wunna Maung Lin. The economic issue seems to be the main goal for both. The EU has increased its economic ties with South East Asia by opening negotiations for free trade agreements with Singapore and Malaysia in 2010. At the same time, the Philippine government is preparing for talks on a possible free-trade agreement with the European Union within the year.
Next June the East Asia Summit (EAS)–a pan-Asian forum held annually by the leaders of all 10 members of ASEAN, together with China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand–should take place in Indonesia. This year Russia and the US will also join the meetings, and the Burmese issue will surely be at the center of the debate. It would be interesting to know if Washington will have the desire and nerve to raise concerns at a table with two other United Nations Security Council members. Russia and China have in fact used their veto powers to block any UN resolution on Burma and disagreements among the three on the Burmese issue , which, in their view, is heading in the right direction, could stop US economic and political aspirations in the ASEAN region, thus helping China and other Asian Countries in strengthening their interest in the region.
