Quo vadis Asean?

0

DISPUTED ISLAND: China now considers the city of Sansha on an island in the disputed Paracel chain as part of Hainan province. — AFP photo

MANY political analysts had been eagerly looking forward to some definitive statement from Asean (Association of South-East Asian Nations) after the meeting of its foreign ministers in Phnom Penh last month, but were disappointed when there was none.

For the first time in 45 years of its existence, Asean has broken its tradition of issuing a joint communique after each high-level meeting.

Against the back drop of recent standoffs between China and the Philippines over the ownership of a submerged shoal in the South China Sea, an expression of concern or an appeal for cool heads from Asean would have been appropriate and timely. The peoples of the littoral states of which Malaysia is one are anxious to know how Asean as a block would react to China’s assertiveness in the region.

As a result, speculations are inevitable and many questions remain unanswered. One, is there something wrong in or with Asean now? It has been speculated that the host country, Cambodia, had suggested silence over the issue to avoid misunderstanding with China with which it has close economic and political connections. A statement endorsed by all members of Asean would inevitably mention the China-Philippines spat, and originating from Phnom Penh, it could be read by China as an Asean stand that might compromise her claims. The Cambodian position is understandable but, unfortunately, has created another problem between two members of Asean itself. This was an unnecessary outcome.

The moment each country in the grouping pursues its own agenda, trouble starts. Obviously, China would prefer to deal with each country or rival claimant separately or bilaterally. This strategy would serve China’s purpose – a big boy dealing with a small kid rather than with a bunch of boys standing shoulder to shoulder saying: “Touch one touch all.”

For the Asean members, however, the four decades of consensus building or the ‘Asean Way’ of dealing with conflicts within the group would outweigh other considerations. Any threat from outside, dare we say touch one touch all? It remains to be seen.

Should there be a fissure in its ranks, Asean’s role as the guarantor and guardian of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (Zopan), the raison d’etre for its creation exactly 45 years ago this month, would be reduced to that of a social club, only able to settle minor internal problems within that club, and thus leaving matters outside it for someone else to handle. Or manipulate.

That’s a wrong move because it leaves a vacuum for big powers to move in. It is not surprising therefore that the Sheriff of the Pacific has made his presence felt there. China, the other big power, will defend what it considers its turf, leaving the rest of the countries either to side with her or against her or to remain neutral. But neutrality is a dirty word in a war. Look at Belgium during the Second World War in 1940 – Hitler just walked across Brussels to Paris with such ease. Look at Thailand too – from there the Japanese cycled through the rubber gardens in Malaya down to Singapore, at their leisurely pace.

Asean’s stand?

Asean must make a stand somehow, sooner or later. Perhaps, at their next meeting the foreign ministers will make known their collective position vis-a-vis the Chinese claims. And let China know how we look at the same problems from our perspective. A good strategy is to strike a happy medium – work with China for mutual benefit. The joint development of the vast resources of the South China Sea, assuming that there are huge deposits of oil and gas, would benefit millions of people for a long time to come. If properly worked on a fair sharing basis, theses resources are enough to cater for the welfare of generations of inhabitants in this region, which should truly be a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. We have had enough of wars here and another fight will have wiped out what we have gained so far.

Since its inception in August 1967, Asean has been tested in its ability to settle quarrels among its members. To some extent, it has succeeded in minimising internal conflicts except for the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam in 1978 and the Timor Timur crisis in 1998, which required United Nations intervention to solve.

The exchange of fire between the Cambodian and Thai troops around the Preah Vihear temple was not necessary because the ownership of the temple and the land on which it stands had been declared the property of Cambodia in 1962 by the International Court of Justice. Such a border dispute already settled but revisited after 50 years shows how difficult it is for Asean to prevent, let alone settle, quarrels among its own group on its own. Obviously, the ‘Asean Way’ or consensus-process approach does not work well when there are intra-countries claims. Like it or not, the United Nations would have to step in from time to time. It goes to show how fragile Asean is on its own. It cannot allow a hairline crack in its walls.

As I see it, the South China Sea is boiling hot. Like it or not, the UN may have to be prepared for any eventuality and be nearer the potential trouble spots. Would it not be feasible for the UN to build its regional headquarters somewhere here, say in Malaysia? Most central, Sarawak? My choice.

As a littoral state, we need to know who the other claimants of territories are, so that we can make our an appropriate stand in relation to each counter claim based on historical facts and/or in accordance with the Law of the Sea, part of the Public International Law by which all nations are bound.

Perhaps, from the next communique from Asean we may be able to discern the various areas under dispute and the parties to the claims. For instance, have we a problem with Thailand and if there is, what would that be? With the Philippines? With any other member of the group?

For the moment we need Asean to continue handling diplomacy in accordance with its original principles as adopted at the first Bali Summit in 1976: respect for territorial sovereignty and integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, and effective cooperation between members.

Malaysia was one of the five founding members of Asean and its people are naturally interested to know what their foreign office can tell them by way of measures taken to prevent any more standoffs between the claimants of the shoal; more importantly, plans to dissuade more building of structures on any island under dispute. Have we not learnt a lesson from the Palestine–Israeli conflict over the settlements on the West Bank?

As Malaysians, we are being curious just so that we will not be caught with our pants down in the event of war in the South China Sea.