ASEAN must continue to remain a strong force for regional ties in the Asia-Pacific and avoid short-sighted attempts to undermine the bloc's unity or exploit divisions.
Questions are still being asked about ASEAN's unprecedented failure to issue a joint communiqué for the first time in its 45-year history at Phnom Penh earlier this month due to disagreements over the South China Sea. Regardless of what transpired at the meeting, it was an embarrassing moment for ASEAN and it raises questions about the ability of the organization to preserve its autonomy and centrality amidst great powers with the potential to dominate the region. If the grouping needs to do some "soul searching" over the next few months, as ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan put it, where should it start?
A logical start should be to try to make some progress on the South China Sea (SCS), since events at Phnom Penh illustrated that intra-ASEAN divisions on the issue can clearly tarnish the organization's image.
As a first step, the four ASEAN claimants- the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia- should aim to clarify and codify their various South China Sea (SCS) claims in order to present a more unified front to China, as others have advised. Beijing has a proven record of exploiting ambiguity to make contradictory claims in the SCS, some of which have very little basis in international law.
If ASEAN countries make their claims explicit by codifying them in domestic legislation and multilateral frameworks in accordance with international law and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), they can sort out areas where disputes are particularly intractable and aspects where their opinions converge. The ball would then be in China's court to clarify the basis for its own claims. As of now, ambiguity on the SCS only allows Beijing to make dubious claims while simultaneously exposing divisions within ASEAN. While ASEAN should continue efforts toward a code of conduct with China, there is no substitute for clarity on this question.
Secondly and more broadly, ASEAN as a grouping should redouble efforts to preserve its centrality and cohesion. The organization is receiving greater international scrutiny these days and it will continue to grapple with tough issues like the SCS in the future. Yet at the same time, much like Cambodia in 2012, the next few years will see ASEAN chaired by smaller or less-developed states (Brunei in 2013, Burma in 2014, Laos in 2016). While these countries are capable in their own right, they may not have the same capacity to drive regional integration or tackle contentious disputes as an Indonesia or Singapore. And while Southeast Asia has other great leaders, it will be difficult to sustain the decade of vigorous and dynamic leadership ASEAN has enjoyed under Secretary Generals Ong Keng Yeong (2004-2008) and Surin Pitsuwan (2008-2012).
Confronting this challenge will require greater efforts on various fronts. For one, ASEAN must move faster on its goal of creating an ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015, given that the bloc is behind on several aspects of that initiative. Greater regional cohesion creates a stronger collective identity among all members of the organization and strengthens economic linkages between them, both of which will incentivize putting ASEAN first. But if states choose to “keep to themselves,” as Pitsuwan told the Myanmar Times earlier this year that will only hold ASEAN back. Repeats of Phnom Penh could also be avoided by agreeing on innovative ways to express legitimate disagreements, which will require flexibility from both the chair and other ASEAN countries. And if future crises do occur, solving them may require ASEAN’s older members to demonstrate leadership and innovation, like Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa's “shuttle diplomacy”' that led to the organization's six-point principle agreement on Friday.
Outside actors like the United States and China should continue to support a strong and united ASEAN. Despite its shortcomings, the organization remains the best hub around which to structure a regional architecture that will socialize actors into a set of acceptable norms and behaviors, and guide Asia towards a prosperous and peaceful future. Equally important, they should also resist short-sighted attempts to undermine the bloc's unity or exploit its divisions, since they will only undermine this shared goal and leave themselves increasingly isolated in a more integrated world.
Prashanth Parameswaran is a PhD candidate in international relations at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a non-resident WSD-Handa fellow at CSIS Pacific Forum. You can read his blog The Asianist at and follow him on Twitter at @TheAsianist
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ImperiumVita
On the contrary, the author does a disservice to China by not taking its words (and actions) at face value. China's stated bases for its South China Sea claims are: The entire sea is ours because we say its a "Core Interest," because we say it belonged to us historically, and because "China is a big country, other countries are small, " … "did we mention there's now a Chinese military garrison stationed there?"
John Chan
@ImperiumVita,
What is wrong with ”China is a big country” therefore it needs more resources? On what basis small countries entitle more than fair share of resources than a big country? Is it because they claimed they are the god chosen one, they have fairer skin color than the others, or they can rob and suppress other people with violence using lethal weapons?
In the principle of liberty and equality, all human being entitles equal fair share of the resources on this planet; it is greedy and not fair for the people in Australia, Canada and USA occupy more than a fair share of resources on the planet than the others, UN should force them to share their resources with other have-nots on this planet.
Mazo
You mean share like how China is sharing all the manufacturing jobs with the "have nots" ?? OR how China is sharing its prosperity with the dictators and generals in Africa while millions of Africans continue to live in poverty ?? Spare us the platitudes!
China is greedy, imperialistic hegemony that cries about how the "West" is "greedy", "unfair" and "aggressive" while it does the exact same thing with smaller countries and tells them that it "needs" rhese resources because it is "big" ? Big in what exactly ? Hubris ??
a_canadian_observer
@Mazo: The big difference between the West and china is: the West has set up numerous charities to help the poor countries/people, while china has done nothing with its #2 economy. Doesn't that tell you something about the chinese?
John Chan
@Mazo,
Smearing democratically elected African leaders as dictators is a sign of Whitman hubris. Africans have been exploited ruthlessly by the Europeans in last few hundred years and left them totally destitute. But with China’s help they are rebuilding their nations despite the obstacles and reckless interference of their ex-colonial invaders, but their progress is admirable, they have shown independence and determination.
You should ask what have the Europeans done for the Africans other than enslaving them, digging holes in Africa, setting Africans up to kill each other with European weapons, … While you at it, you should also ask what the Europeans have done for the natives in Canada, USA, Australia, … other than genocide, robbing them with greed, …?
Flam
john chan:What is wrong with ”China is a big country” therefore it needs more resources?
A: there is something wrong with China right now of course we all know it is a big country but its demands on needs are so great that even its own original size of territory cannot support it in my dismay it made fake claims on whole SCS to grab and exploit those areas to get the immense resources inillegally and unlawfully way.
John Chan: On what basis small countries entitle more than fair share of resources than a big country?
A:this small countries has each legal and historical evidences and that can support their claims and can even prove in international arbitration where in China refuse it because they cannot support its claims with real legal and historical evidences to prove their claims are truthfully real and deserving to be given to China.
John Chan:Is it because they claimed they are the god chosen one, they have fairer skin color than the others, or they can rob and suppress other people with violence using lethal weapons?
A:You’re merely throwing judgemental statements here so I will give some corrections.
1.They didn’t claim these area because they are “God” or chosen one they claimed this because they have basis to do that China’s claims are dubious and supicious in nature so I believe it will never prove even in international arbirtration which is more clomplicated than in bilateral talks. Speaking something “God” or “chosen one” are too fallacious and merely used maliciously used to tainted someone’s character or reputation.
2. These small countries didn’t claim those areas because they have fairer skin in fact Chinese has fairer skin than those southeast asia countries because of climate. Most of them ranging from tan to dark brown. You are trying to say these people discrimating Chinese because of their complexion but how? Or when it happened to Chinese? And where did you get that?
3. Those small countries didn’t claim those areas because they can rob or suppress other people with violence and lethal weapon. They don’t have to rob because they have basis on their claims do you get it very far from china’s claim which is dubious and suspicious. China really are the one who rob those islands and shoals from them by aggressively sent fishing and military vessel to exploit those areas and even wnet go far bt establishing government as if is those areas belong to them without bringing this case on international arbitration to determine which country/ies really have sovereignty those place.
Flam
@ImperiumVita
“Core Interest” are isolated only in Chinese interest what would have here ASEANS should doubled their efforts to keep their region in peace and harmony, to become autonomous region in dealing with problems that would come outside of it, and to have right to practice laws accordingly international laws to resolve problems and confiicts peacefully and effecient manner. China will enter this region pretending as a good friend but her own purpose is to deceive, endanger, and exploit to gain benefits that are isolated for chinese using “Core Interest” which is dubious and suspicious.