Building the ASEAN Political-Security Community

February 5, 2013

Building the ASEAN Political-Security Community

Roby Arya Brata, Jakarta | Opinion |02-05-13

asean (1)ASEAN member states (AMS) are facing challenging political and security issues in the region, including an arms race, corruption, the development gap and the impact of it, ethnic clashes and intolerance, human trafficking, human rights abuses, an illicit drug trade, migration, money laundering, social injustice, terrorism, territorial maritime disputes, and other forms of transnational crimes.

Through political and security development cooperation among the AMS, the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) is institutionally framed to effectively manage these issues. The APSC constitutes one of the three pillars supporting the ASEAN Community ─ alongside ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). Under the APSC blueprint, which provides a roadmap and timetable, the APSC will be established by 2015.

Promoting political development based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms — as inscribed in the ASEAN Charter — the APSC, according to its blueprint, will “ensure the people and member states of ASEAN live in peace with one another and with the world at large in a just, democratic and harmonious environment”.

However, in a recent interview with Channel News Asia, ASEAN’s newly-le-luong-minhinstalled Secretary-General, Le Luong Minh, voiced concern over the slow progress toward building an ASEAN Community, including the APSC, by 2015. “We are not on track. A lot of work still needs to be done,” he said.

One of the major problems impeding the progress of establishing the ASEAN Community and the APSC is the slow pace of ratification and program implementation by the AMS.

In addition to the weak political commitment of the AMS, this slow progress may also be attributed to the insufficient power of the ASEAN Secretariat to coordinate, monitor and “direct” the policies, programs and activities of the ASEAN and the AMS in achieving the APSC. With its inadequate operational budget, the ASEAN Secretariat functions like an ASEAN post or liaison office.

The ASEAN Secretariat cannot correct and direct the AMS policies, programs and activities from the proposed actions and programs planned in the APSC Blueprint. The ASEAN Summit, as the highest decision-making body, is also weak in enforcing and “punishing” the AMS to comply with the rules, principles, and purposes contained in the ASEAN Charter.

Moreover, the recent conflicts affecting the AMS show that the institutional framework of the APSC is weak in resolving disputes and maintaining peace in the region. The cases of the South China Sea and Cambodia-Thailand territorial disputes, trans-boundary haze pollution and Rohingya human rights issues demonstrate how such an institutional framework is not effective in managing and resolving the problems.

“To maintain and enhance peace, security and stability in the region”, as stipulated in Article 1 of the ASEAN Charter, the institutional and legal framework of the APSC should be strengthened. The ASEAN Charter should be reviewed to give more power to the ASEAN Secretary-General to act not only as a liaison officer, but also as a coordinating “minister” for ASEAN Community and foreign affairs. He or she and the ASEAN Secretariat would function as a policy-coordinating and policy-making body. However, this Secretariat may also propose new policies or revisions to the ASEAN Summit for approval.

As a “foreign minister” of the ASEAN, the Secretary-General may also act as an intermediary to settle the conflicts and disputes among the AMS. For instance, in the case of the ASEAN’s failure and disunity in making a joint communiqué on the South China Sea dispute at the Phnom Penh Summit last year, he should have done “shuttle diplomacy” to resolve the conflicts.

ASEAN cannot rely on an AMS foreign minister to take the initiative for acting on such preventive diplomacy. In such an event, what if the Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa or other qualified high officials from the AMS were not willing to take the initiative to settle the difference or other forms of conflicting interests? The  Secretary-General, therefore, should be empowered to do the job.

To strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, the political and legal cooperation under the APSC blueprint should be designed and directed to “integrate” the political and legal systems of the AMS. For this purpose, ASEAN should adopt strong conventions on anti-corruption and good governance, maritime disputes, environmental protection, human trafficking, illicit drug trade, extradition and mutual legal assistance, money laundering and other forms of transnational crimes.

To enforce these conventions, ASEAN must have a court that has the power to adjudicate disputes among the AMS and punish (transnational) crimes committed in ASEAN’s jurisdiction. Therefore, to make this court work effectively, the AMS should carefully and clearly redefine and reinterpret the scope and definitions of “sovereignty”, “non-interference”, and “territorial integrity” principles stipulated in the ASEAN Charter.

The writer is an international law and policy analyst at the Cabinet Secretariat of Indonesia. The views expressed are his own.

3 thoughts on “Building the ASEAN Political-Security Community

  1. The main reason is that there are some ASEAN members who are easily swayed by extra-territorial funding and aids due to poor performance in their economies, and some who are trying to simply outdo the pack in ways they see fit themselves based on non-inclusive approaches.

  2. The author’s prescription doesn’t address ASEAN’s main problem – lack of political will.

    Far too many states only pay lip service to community building. To make up for this shortcoming, ASEAN has always taken a “top down” approach which appears in the form of lofty statements or declarations by the Leaders at the annual ASEAN Summits.

    It was to overcome this problem that the Bali Concord was adopted to guide the evolution of the ASEAN Community. The Charter was supposed to be an institutional overhaul to enable it to deal with community type issues and also to give the organization a legal status to be able to act on the organization’s behalf.

    Alas what eventually happened was that the draft Charter was well watered down. But to give the impression that future progress was possible the Charter was called a “living document”. Now we don’t even hear that term !

    Therefore raising the status of the Secretary General would not solve anything. He is already of ministerial rank. He also sits in with the Leaders during summits which gives him a de facto “head of state” rank. Therefore another declaration raising his rank would be another “top heavy” decision so long as member states continue to take a cynical approach to community building.

    Therefore the solution should be to emphasize “bottom up” strengthening of the community. One of the things that could be done is to give the ASEAN secretariat enough resources to finance and support community building projects under the three pillars of the ASEAN Community. Member states still pay about one million dollars each annually which is vastly insufficient to finance its activities. Apparently a proposal to increase membership contribution based on GDP or some other measure had been discussed extensively. Wealthier members, apparently, worried that they might have to fork out more, killed the idea.

    A sense of community must genuinely evolve among member states. One of the ways this can happen is by enhancing the Secretariat’s resources. For the time being, it is probably better for the new Secretary General to push for member states to re-visit the idea of financial resources so that at least ASEAN would have greater financial capacity. Member states need to signal their commitment to community building by committing more resources so that the Secretariat would have the resource freedom to support some of the projects independently.

    Member states must be prepared to project unity at a global level. Its about time for ASEAN to have its own Ambassador to the United Nations. An ASEAN “Embassy” operated from its own resources would ideally facilitate a sense of community. At a later stage ASEAN could have representation in other international bodies as at least establish working relations between with them.

    Go back to basics.It is a marketing job for the new man at the helm of the ASEAN Secretariat. He should learn from the experience of Jacques Delors who made people of the EU excited about Project Europe, and revamp the secretariat for a marketing role. I expected Dr. Surin Pitsuwan to play that role, but he didn’t. Will or can the man from Vietnam do it? Let us wait and see.–Din Merican

  3. Din,
    Lest anybody can raise Rajaratnam from the dead. Born in Sri Lanka, bred in seremban & become the spirit of Singapore & Malaysian Malaysia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s