ASEAN--Coolheaded Reset Required

Letter to Editor, Phnom Penh Post, 17 July 2012

Dear Editor

ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting ended in a blast without issuance of joint communique, which is unprecedented since its establishment in 1967. Some described it as “failure”, “disappointing” or “irresponsible” and the media seems to frame Cambodia, Chair of ASEAN, as the “China-follower culprit” in the drama of “black and white”.

But what is the basis of the judgment between “black and white”? Ultimately, those who wish to see ASEAN’s communique on South China Sea want to see ASEAN pointing finger at China as the “black actor”.

With strong frustration, some says that, rather than a small state like Cambodia, Indonesia might be able to handle the issue better. But this is doubtful considering the current tension and the multi-parties at stake. It is not about the Chair, it is about every member.

All ASEAN members share common desire to have peace and prosperity in the region. However, when come to this issue, each member has different position on how ASEAN should handle it. The media show only two sides, Cambodia versus the Philippines and Vietnam, but fall short to explore the remaining members even though they are aware that ASEAN acts on “Consensus”, and not by the Chair’s unilateral decision.

On one side, the position of the Philippines and Vietnam is that they want to peacefully contain China by the communique, which is regarded as an international pressure, in order to prevent China from taking aggressive action. They need “immediate painkiller”.

On the other hand, Cambodia fears that the above approach might produce adverse effect, which is to push China to the corner and the latter withdraws from dialogue. Cambodia puts priority on the formulation of the Code of Conduct so that the concerned parties can refer to when future friction arise. Cambodia prefers “vaccine” to direct confrontation.

History has shown that ASEAN is the best platform for dialogue. However, in terms of conflict resolution, ASEAN is not the place one should look to. It does not have such mechanism, not even among its members—for instance the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. Frustration always arises whenever one looks for ASEAN with such expectation. Rather than a Win-Lose parameter, ASEAN is at its best for the neutral platform of dialogue.

Even if ASEAN is often criticized as talk-shop, but the talk itself is crucial for conflict prevention. A blast of quarrel at the meeting table is far better than the blast of armed conflict.

The lesson from last week is that, for ASEAN, every voice counts. Now that the strong positions have already been expressed, it is now time for ASEAN to cool-headedly reset its discussion by exploring acceptable line between “painkiller” and “vaccine” without paralyzing its overall integration efforts.