Middle powers must cultivate Asean ties

Middle powers must cultivate Asean ties

At the Asean Foreign Ministers Meeting in Nay Pyi Taw on Aug 14, the 10 countries of Asean made a timely show of unity by issuing an assertive joint communiqué in the face of rising pressure in the Asia Pacific. This is a surprising and encouraging resurgence of confidence in the Asean vision at time when tensions between the great powers of China and the United States threaten to divide the region.

From left are Vietnam's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pham Binh Minh, Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Philippines' Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario and Myanmar's Foreign Minister Wanna Maung Lwin in a group photo during the Asean-Australia ministerial meeting at the Myanmar International Convention Centre.  (Reuters photo)

The stability and prosperity of Asean countries and their ability to resist disruptions at the hands of great powers in the region is far greater when they are united. The middle powers of Asia Pacific, such as Australia and South Korea, must now focus on actively reengaging with Asean to maintain this revived momentum of unity.

The dispute over the South China Sea has tested the loyalties of Asean member states as China pushes boundaries to gauge the United States’ willingness to fulfill its commitment to the region. With China becoming more assertive in pressing its claims to most of the South China Sea, divisions between Asean’s maritime claimants and mainland non-claimant states appeared to be widening.

Divided, the Asean states are vulnerable. However, when they present a united front, their clout is significant enough to hedge and balance against pressure from the great powers, a fact that Asean states are once again recognising.

The joint communique included statements on MH17 and North Korean nuclear activities, but most important was its expression of Asean’s “serious concern” over increased tensions in the region and reaffirmed the importance of “maintaining peace, stability, maritime security as well as freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea. It contained a renewed determination to conclude negotiations with China on a Code of Conduct (COC), as well as further steps towards implementing the Declaration of Conduct among Parties (DOC) in the South China Sea.

This new resolve is in stark contrast to 2012 when the joint communiqué was blocked by Cambodia because of disagreements over the South China Sea, while the weak language used in 2013 was illustrative of divisions emerging in Southeast Asia. In 2014, Asean has tried to wrest back some control over the issue.

Asean has been a vehicle through which its member states have benefited immensely having produced incremental change and relative stability in the region. The Asean Free Trade Area and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with neighbours like China and India have contributed to the region’s solid economic growth.

Asean’s “Principle of Non-Interference” has allowed countries to undertake difficult political transitions or improve their human rights records without relentless condemnation from their neighbours. This principle has kept old divisions and internal politics on the side-lines, necessitating diplomatic finesse to influence change.

Asean centrality has emerged as the accepted norm in most of the region’s key forums. As a bloc, it has a population of more than 600 million, a fast growing US$2.4 trillion (767 trillion baht) GDP and occupies a prime position on the world stage, which is why Asean’s 2014 show of unity is so significant.

To build on the momentum of this show of solidarity the middle powers in the region such as Australia, South Korea and Japan must remind Asean’s members that they are better off together than divided and that the organisation is critical to the stability of the region. These countries already meet on an ad hoc basis and at regional meetings like the East Asia Forum and Asean Regional Forum. However, the large membership of these forums means that they are usually dominated by broad issues to the Asia-Pacific rather than the specific needs of Asean.

Middle powers ought to think more about engagement with Asean beyond their existing trade arrangements and regional forums by establishing regular Asean+1 conferences. This would allow the countries greater scope to set the agenda to deal with issues of direct relevance to Southeast Asia, and give the credibility of Asean a major boost both within the region and among its member states.

Australia for instance is grappling with a similar quandary to most countries in Asean, needing to balance its security ties with the United States and its growing economic ties to China. Like the other middle powers, Australia should be looking towards Asean as a mutual hedge independent of the US versus China rivalry.

To celebrate their 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations in November, Asean and Australia are holding an Asean-Australia Commemorative Summit in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. A goal of this conference should be the establishment of a regular Asean+1 meeting with Australia. For Australia, this would be chance to reaffirm its role as a willing and able member of the Asia-Pacific, and allow it to tailor a strategy with Asean which is independent from the United States. Priority areas such as education, human resources, business, government and cultural links can blossom with more regular one-on-one interactions.

For Asean, this would be a timely shot in the arm.

The loyalties of Asean countries have been torn between China, the United States and their Asean neighbours over the South China Sea issue. For now though, the goal of a unified Asean seems to be back in fashion. Establishing regular Asean+1 conferences with Australia, and other middle power neighbours such as South Korea and Japan, will reiterate the importance of a united Asean for a stable and prosperous regional order and give the organisation’s credibility a much needed momentum boost.


Jacob Hogan is a research fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT