July 17, 2012
ASEAN dents its credibility in Phnom Penh
by Simon Tay
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) failure to issue a communique at the end of the ministerial meeting hosted in Cambodia last week shocked many.
Reports indicate the drafting floundered on the issue of the South China Sea where the sovereignty of different islets is disputed.
The Philippines wished to record that the matter had been discussed whereas Cambodia, which currently chairs the group, felt that any mention would compromise ASEAN neutrality. The claims in the South China Sea were never going to be resolved by a statement, however worded. As such, the quite unprecedented failure shows up not so much the struggle to deal with a sensitive issue but, rather, what it may suggest are more systemic concerns about divisions within ASEAN.
These come precisely at the wrong time, when the group needs to show unity and resolve to create an ASEAN Community by 2015. It also dents ASEAN’s credibility as host for dialogues that span not just its own region but a wider footprint, like the newly created East Asia Summit.
The China Factor
Factors of division have been emerging over time. These relate not just to the South China Sea, but more broadly to the roles of the United States and China and such issues as the Mekong River and Myanmar.
The Obama administration’s “pivot” to give more attention to Asia these last four years has been evident and has largely been well received. But this comes after more than a decade in which China has emerged as the best friend to many. Given the economic dynamics, there is a sense that China will not go away but will grow in importance. This is especially notable in Beijing’s largesse to some in ASEAN.
Take Cambodia, the host of the failed meeting. Over the last decade, Beijing
has provided billions for infrastructure, including the building for the Kingdom’s Council of Ministers.
In April, Chinese leader Hu Jintao made a four-day state visit and just a month before the ASEAN Ministerial meeting, a senior Communist party leader visited Phnom Penh with promises to “take strategic approaches to step up the bilateral co-operation to new heights”.
Given that the US market remains its largest trade partner, Cambodia seems to be playing a risky game. Intended or otherwise, the failure at the Phnom Penh meeting is seen as favouring China.
Other ASEAN members have come to quite different positions. The Philippines has strengthened its US alliance as Manila asserts its claims to areas in the South China Sea.
Vietnam has tilted towards America and the recent visit by US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta to Hanoi raises the possibility for arrangements to host an American military presence at Cam Ranh Bay.
What to do now
What can the small and medium sized states in ASEAN do, given these great power dynamics? There are things beyond their control.
ASEAN could breathe easier if Beijing and Washington recognise their interdependence and that the region is big enough for them both. But if the rhetoric of differences grows louder and it comes to push and shove, ASEAN will be in an invidious position.
Other things are hard but possible. For too long, individual countries’ policies towards China and the US have been little discussed. Dialogue could help each ASEAN member understand the other’s concerns and, from this, seek common positions. Agreeing upon anchor points about the critical relationships with these giants would help ASEAN maintain centrality.
Last comes what should be do-able and indeed ought to have been done at 
this last meeting. This is to agree on a form of words, a set phrase, about the South China Sea.
Critics will say that papering over differences will not resolve the issue. Of course not, but there are other uses. Think of papered up forms of words like the “one-China” principle in relation to Taiwan. While this is open to varying interpretations, it has helped frame a range of differences that is understood (but not conceded) by each party.
Not least, if ASEAN can reach such a form of words about the South China Sea, then its communiques need not be held captive to a single issue. Noting but setting aside what is unresolved, the group would then be able to go on to deal with the rest of its agenda, where consensus is possible.
Perfect Neutrality Impossible
ASEAN has achieved centrality as a kind of default position, and largely because great powers lack sufficient trust amongst themselves. There are, however, still necessary conditions to be of use in this role.
Perfect neutrality is impossible, when some of its members are formal allies with one power, or receive large amounts of high-profile aid from another. But open and healthy dialogue about the fullest possible range of issues is critical for ASEAN-led dialogues to remain relevant.
For this, each ASEAN member must be willing to keep the group’s interest as a whole in view, and not focus solely on its bilateral ties with China or America. Otherwise ASEAN will not only fail to be neutral, but be ineffective and indeed neutered. — Today/The Malaysian Insider
* Simon Tay is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and teaches at the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law.
Din Merican: the Malaysian DJ Blogger 
ASEAN has entered a new phase. It’s a phase that ASEAN officials ought to be very worried about because the door has been opened for outside powers interference.
In this regard Simon has well captured the plusses and negatives. The balance looks negative. Donald Emmerson, another eminent political scientist also wrote in the LA Times.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NG17Ae03.html
Although he tried to be more “balanced” his conclusion is essentially the same as Simon’s. The US Ambassador to ASEAN, however, has taken a strange view. He thinks that the non-operation of consensus is a good sign that shows that ASEAN is able to debate and ultimately, hold mutually exclusive views. Unfortunately that view is wrong.
What Cambodia has done is also wrong and unprecedented. For the Chair to act brashly on its own to stop any reference to an issue that has been discussed is WRONG. ALL the ASEAN Chairs, since 45 years have known the rule of the game. For Cambodia, the youngest ASEAN member to act this way is unacceptable.
Strictly speaking the South China issue is NOT a bilateral issue. There are 4 ASEAN members who claim parts of it. It may be bilateral from the Chinese perspective but from the ASEAN claimants’ side it is plurilateral.
China too has come out looking worse than ever. While we don’t want to accuse China of having bought Cambodia, it handled the issue very badly indeed. It also reflects, to some degree the internal power structure in China. On the South China issue it is not the foreign ministry that calls the shots hence its remarkably clumsy handling of the issue. But China has to get its act together. The way a major power handles its power is very important.
If ASEAN does not handle this issue better in the November Summit, ASEAN’s credibility would be permanently, and possibly irreversibly, damaged.
If ASEAN is not able to provide assurance of its ability to take an appropriate stance on the issue, the November summit might turn out to be a major embarrassment for ASEAN and Cambodia, if ASEAN’s main dialogue partners decide to skip the summit.
Dato, why are we talking ASEAN etc when it is the Election Year? There is this hunger for knowledge of what is happening at home. Be the political activist that you set out to be, so that you can make a difference.
While we are on the back of the kerbau, we have to do the riding. Because no one else can.
The Asean states should study some history instead of just looking at short term economic relations. The South China Sea territorial claims by China are not bilateral issues.
China is an upcoming superpower.
For Small or Medium sized states to allow themselves to forced to make individual stands is a recipe to be bullied. It is almost irrelevant whether China becomes a friendly or belligerent power. Superpowers inevitably have “vital interests” and they will do what it takes to ensure their vital interests are covered.
Simon Tay is right on one score when he said that:”The claims in the South China Sea were never going to be resolved by a Statement, however worded.”
However, what Simon failed to mention in his article is that the South China Sea issue was not on the agenda of the meeting. Also, one has to respect the host country. A gamut of important issues were up for discussion. Furthermore, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss the matter
More importantly, ASEAN Leaders had only three months earlier on April 4, 2012 at the ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh set and endorsed the ASEAN position on the issue:i) reaffirmed to work closely with China on the issue; ii) that ASEAN come out with the possible elements of a Code of Conduct on the issue before discussing it with China, and iii) that there should be no outside interference (read, the USA) on the issue.
The very next day, April 5, 2012, Manila sent both its Foreign and Defense Secretaries to Washington to meet with their American counterparts and obtained USD 30 million in military aid plus “real time information sharing” on Philippines maritime security.
From the above, it would appear that President Aquino, who was at the April 4 ASEAN Summit, signed on an accord that he had no intention of complying with.! Indeed, Manila dents its credibility, instead. But then the Filipinos are usually spoilers when it comes to ASEAN. They think that they can rely on US military support to deal with China.
Aside from the above, Manila orchestrated anti-China demonstrations in its capital city and other towns. China was forced to issue travel advisory discouraging its tourists to visit the Philippines. And for good measure, Beijing also imposed quarantine on imports of Filipino fruits, resulting in over USD 100 million in loss in tourism and trade within the first three months and that this is growing.
The US is NOT likely to go to war in defense of the Philippines or to convert the South China Sea into a US lake. The time has come for governments to set aside the posturing that has characterised negotiations on the issue. Compromise will not emerge in an atmosphere of acrimony. What is required is leadership and direction.
ASEAN is doing its part in respect of working out a Code of Conduct, so the Philippines should not act as a spoiler. In the meantime, Manila should consider a ” commercial arrangement” with China, as opposed to “joint development” of the area under dispute.
“Joint development” presumes and is carried out on the basis of 50-50 ownership of the area and its resources while “commercial arrangements” set aside the question of sovereignty and concern ONLY the exploration of resources on commercial terms to be agreed upon between the parties to the arrangement.
Parties concerned must understand the peculiarities and sensitivities of the other and seek out each other for mutual benefit and mutual gains.-Terang Bulan
It is high time that the Philippines grows up. Is it going to act in a similar manner ( that is, walk out) as it did in Phnom Penh when Laos hosts the next meeting or when Myanmar assumes the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014 and Malaysia in 2015?
The Philippines has also to bear in mind the position of Thailand, the coordinator between ASEAN and China over the next three years. Thailand has made it clear that it would not allow disputes in the South China Sea to disrupt cooperation between ASEAN and China.
Terang Bulan is right that both China and the Philippines ought to explore some form of “commercial arrangement” to harness resources in areas concerned in the South China Sea for their mutual benefit and mutual gain without prejudicing their sovereignty claims. The Aquino Administration cannot assume the United States will defend the Philippines over the South China Sea issue. — Former Diplomat
This former diplomat must be from Aloq Setaq.
“… Beijing and Washington (should) recognise that the region is big enough for them both…”
Is the Chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs really serious?
It is like saying that the West Indies region is big enough for both.
C’mon Simon Tay, you can do better than that…