That missing communiqué

ASEAN’s unprecedented failure to agree on a communiqué after the foreign ministers’ meeting last week, because of problems finding acceptable wording on the South China Sea (SCS) issue, is still provoking plenty of commentary.

For Ernest Bower, it’s all China's fault:

“Fundamentally, the chaos at the ASEAN meeting was an outcome cynically manipulated and abetted by a China that has decided that a weak and divided ASEAN is in its national interests.

“Understanding the fact that China has decided to undermine ASEAN unity and the fact that ASEAN has the capacity and commitment to overcome this shortsighted campaign to break its ranks is a necessary condition for advising policy-makers in Manila to avoid the trap of underinvesting in ASEAN. They should continue joining countries that push to advance regional structures that will promote peace, security and prosperity in the Asia Pacific to strengthen ASEAN…

“Filipinos should know what happened in Phnom Penh and understand that the message from Cambodia is not ‘ASEAN is messy and we should proceed carefully and reduce our engagement and investment,’ but rather ‘ASEAN unity is not supported by China and this is an indication we need to redouble our efforts to engage and support ASEAN’s goals for unity.’”

Tan Seng Chye, on the other hand, names no individual countries. But by emphasizing ASEAN as a “neutral platform”, and presenting the SCS as a distraction from the main purpose of the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM), he clearly points towards the Philippines and Viet Nam.

“What happened at the recent AMM should be taken seriously by ASEAN as a wake-up call. For the first time certain individual ASEAN countries were prepared to pursue their own interest to the extent of disregarding ASEAN’s cohesion and the practice of finding a compromise for ASEAN’s common interests. This issue has become more challenging for ASEAN because of the emerging big power rivalry in the region including in the SCS…

“Over the years, ASEAN has been able to establish its importance and relevance as a neutral platform and a convenor [italics added] for the major powers to meet with ASEAN countries and among themselves…

“The new era of emerging big power rivalry in the region involves the US’ enhanced engagement in the Asia region and its pivot or re-balancing of its military forces to Asia Pacific as well as China’s response to the US strategy to conscribe it. This rivalry has an impact on ASEAN... 

“The AMM has been distracted from its main purpose and objectives by the SCS disputes which would not be resolved for a long time to come… Looking forward, ASEAN should review what has happened at the AMM and in recent times and consider how it can regain its cohesion and solidarity for ASEAN to maintain its relevance and role in the region to further ASEAN’s interests.”

For Kavi Chongkittavorn, there is guilt everywhere. The ASEAN claimants, the ASEAN non-claimants, the current Chair, the US, China – all “have effectively held ASEAN hostage one way or another”, and used it “as a play toy for their own benefits all the way”.

This is nearer the mark, I feel (although it is perhaps a little harsh on the non-claimants).

China seems to be making diplomatic missteps into an art form. But did the US really not foresee this kind of escalation after its highly public 2010 intervention and subsequent “pivot”? Did Viet Nam and the Philippines really think all ASEAN's members would want to sign up to some China-antagonizing mission over the South China Sea? Did the Cambodian Chair really think it was OK to massively inflate the whole issue, yet again, by not moving heaven and earth to reach an agreement?

The cohesive role to which ASEAN-the-organization should be aspiring is that of providing an open and level platform – one that shores up political will for a long-term search for a solution, but also facilitates the kind of short-term understandings necessary to minimize the risk of accidents and the escalation of small flare-ups.

This role is much less likely to be realized if ASEAN, as an organization, shows itself to be partial. Individual members, therefore, who appear to be blatantly pushing the association to line up behind one “side” – whichever side that might be – are doing ASEAN, and SEA as a whole, a grave disservice.

UPDATE (18 July): Former Ambassador Saban Siagian warns: “If this diplomatic guerrilla war between Washington and Beijing continues unchecked it could be the beginning of the end for ASEAN,” and calls for urgent Indonesian diplomatic action. The Bangkok Post, too, in an article referred to by Milton Osborne in The Interpreter, points the finger at the US and China: “There was no clear winner in last week's skirmish between two superpowers in Phnom Penh and it is probably in the interests of all Asean nations and the world that there not be a winner in this power struggle. Instead both countries should drop the Cold War mentality and begin working together on resolving the maritime disputes and other issues in a way that reflects their strategic and economic interdependence.” This report details some of the behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts.

UPDATE (19 July): Karim Raslan evokes “a constant tussle for pre-eminence and advantage between Washington and Beijing”, in which “the two sides wrestled almost without care for their nominal hosts”, displaying “intensity, fury and doggedness”. ASEAN's members face a choice: “they can live up to Asean’s promise as a means to keep the countries in the region from being pawns of great powers, or again fall victim to the age-old tactic of divide and conquer.”