ASEAN will stand up to China?

I would be very surprised if the almost 50 year old ASEAN is able to unite long enough to stand up to the bullying of China. ASEAN isn’t even a paper tiger. ASEAN had always been long on nice diplomatic words about unity and brotherly cooperation, but very short on getting anything done.

Still, I can’t help hoping I am wrong. When The Philippine Star headline read: ASEAN to China: Stop raising tension at sea, half of me wanted to celebrate and the other half wanted to give that news a big yawn.

But the story reported how “Some leaders spoke boldly about the need for ASEAN to unite and ensure that it would not become an insignificant force in the face of challenges.” Could it be, after almost 50 years, ASEAN has found its balls? That should be cause for celebration!

Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was supposed to have manifested that “there should be no room for the use of gunboat diplomacy” because what should be promoted is “peaceful means of settling disputes” by following the UNCLOS and the DOC or the Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.

The Indonesian president was supposed to have called on the members of ASEAN to show moral courage. The president of Vietnam, also now in trouble with China, called on ASEAN solidarity for the enforcement of the rule of law.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, surprisingly made the same appeal for “concrete demonstration of ASEAN solidarity in terms of promoting adherence to the rule of law” and display moral strength even in the face of “daunting situations.” Razak was said to have warned his colleagues that this is the way by which ASEAN could project itself as a respectable and reliable organization. 

Wow. China must have really pissed off ASEAN leaders big time. Not too long ago, Malaysia was playing it safe and refrained from using any such fighting words with reference to China, even if no one mentioned China because everyone knew who the regional bully is. Maybe the shabby way China treated Malaysia in the wake of the Malaysian Airlines crisis caused a reversal of Malaysian government attitude towards China.

Up to this time, assuming ASEAN leaders will back up their words with action, China had been rather successful in playing up one ASEAN member against another in a divide and conquer scheme. China would offer economic goodies to one even as China threatens another with brute force. And it seems to be working.

That’s why China didn’t want the South China Sea issues taken up on an ASEAN level. China’s preference is bilateral negotiations with ASEAN nations with claims that conflicted with China’s ridiculous Nine Dash Line.

Then again, things may really be changing. Myanmar dared to cut off the apron strings that attached it to China. Myanmar’s political leadership displeased China greatly when it unilaterally stopped a major hydro electric dam project funded by China, but disliked by the Burmese people.

By way of background, in 2002, ASEAN and China signed a document that calls on all claimants to exercise restraint and stop new occupation in the South China/West Philippine Sea. But its non-binding nature and lack of sanctions renders the accord toothless.

We have taken the position that for such a code to be effective, it must be credible, binding and enforceable. The overriding consideration of our diplomatic moves is to ensure a peaceful outcome. War will solve nothing and is definitely an option that not one of the contending parties can really afford.

Some years ago, I wrote from Singapore about an article published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies touching on our problems with China. The narrative and the insights of Amitav Acharya, a visiting professorial fellow of the Institute from the American University in Washington DC are particularly revealing of both Chinese and ASEAN attitudes.

Acharya recalls that during the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi in 2010, US State Secretary Hillary Clinton announced that the South China Sea was one of America’s core interests. That statement, according to Acharya, provoked rough talk from her Chinese counterpart, who is supposed to have looked at Singapore’s then Foreign Minister George Yeo and said, “China is a big country and other countries are small countries and that’s just a fact.”

Spoken like a true bully, that statement had been the hallmark of China’s policy towards its neighbors in Southeast Asia. Gloves off, charm offensive ended, China will get what it wants by whatever way it can just because it can.

ASEAN’s reaction seemed to be one of fear. Acharya reports that “ASEAN didn’t want the South China Sea issue to be mentioned in the Declaration of the US-ASEAN Summit in September 2010…”

Maybe, that’s why Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario all but ignored ASEAN in his China strategy. Instead, the ambassador went out of the region, to good ol’ Mother America for succor in the mistaken notion that America gives a monkey’s ass about us.

Carlyle A. Thayer, Emeritus Professor at the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defense Force Academy, Canberra, corroborated that point. Writing an article for “thediplomat.com” entitled “Is the Philippines an Orphan”, Prof. Thayer thinks that the Philippines holds misconceived expectations over the roles that ASEAN and the US can play.

Prof Thayer recalls that “ASEAN divisions over how to best handle sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea date back over a decade. ASEAN members and China first began negotiations on sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea in 2000.”

Even at this juncture, the Philippines pushed strongly for a Code of Conduct (COC) to constrain China’s ‘creeping assertiveness,’ but failed to gather sufficient support from its fellow ASEAN members and consequentially had to accept a watered down version in the form of the Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).

Let me quote Thayer from a column I wrote June 12, 2012 for further background:

“The DOC is merely a non-binding political statement calling on parties to undertake confidence building measures and cooperative activities pending the settlement of sovereignty disputes.”

It took a decade before ASEAN senior officials began drafting a more binding Code of Conduct or COC with the intention of presenting a final agreed upon draft to China for discussion. Thayer reports that “when ASEAN foreign ministers met in Cambodia in January 2012, however, it quickly became apparent that they were divided over Filipino proposals.

“Internal ASEAN divisions also resurfaced at the 20th ASEAN Summit held in Phnom Penh from April 3 to 4 under the chairmanship of Cambodia. Prior to the summit, Chinese President Hu Jintao made a high-profile visit to Cambodia, where he made clear to Prime Minister Hun Sen that Beijing opposed holding talks on a binding Code of Conduct too quickly.

“Whether acting under Chinese inducement or not, Cambodia, as ASEAN chair, reportedly removed formal discussion of the South China Sea from the summit agenda. The Philippines and Vietnam objected and pressed their case at a meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers held the day before the summit and again at the summit itself.”

Thus Thayer rightly concludes “Not only is ASEAN divided on the issue, but several of its members are critical of the Philippines handling of its dispute with China. One Malaysian commentator has gone so far as to assert that the Philippines hijacked the ASEAN Summit.”

Have things now so dramatically changed?

I want to recall the statements of some of the founding foreign ministers of ASEAN to serve as anchor for the regional group.

Adam Malik, the Indonesian foreign minister, during ASEAN’s founding talked of “a region which can stand on its own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region.”

Tun Abdul Razak, the father of the current Malaysian PM: “We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia must get together… It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together…”

Could it be that the dream of the founders of ASEAN for that elusive ASEAN unity is upon us? Maybe the process has begun. But it’s still a long road ahead. 

Politicians and vampires

I totally agree with a view of one of my Facebook friends. Appointing a politician to head the PCSO is like assigning a vampire to run the blood bank. 

An appointing power who thinks the vampire and the politician can overcome their basic nature is nuts.

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @boochanco