The summit has reflected weaknesses and achievements of ASEAN. The most apparent weakness is ASEAN’s inability to address issues of severe national and regional cruciality in regard to territorial disputes in the SCS as well as the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. However, ASEAN has not lost its relevance for an emerging regional power like India by replacing Asia-Pacific with Indo-Pacific
While it is definite that ASEAN has been evolved to play a central role in the regional affairs in Southeast Asia, the other side of the story implies that Southeast Asia has always been a hotspot for the global affairs and thus it is worthwhile to watch how the regional organisation is managing its relations with the existing greats as well as the emerging powers, especially when the new buzz word is Indo-Pacific and the centre of the world politics is gradually shifting to this part of the world from the US and Europe.
In fact, US President Donald Trump and White House officials have replaced the term Asia-Pacific with Indo-Pacific and it became clear in the ASEAN Summit that they will now use Indo-Pacific to describe the region.
The latest ASEAN Summit has been unique in many ways. In simpler words, the summit has highlighted the weaknesses as well as achievements of ASEAN as a regional organisation, especially with regard to its relations with the regional and extra-regional powers, who are eager to play substantial roles in the region so far.
First, China-ASEAN relations need to be factored in any analysis on ASEAN’s evolution as a regional mechanism. Despite China’s assertiveness on the South China Sea (SCS) in the recent past, just like its predecessors, the Philippines, in its capacity of ASEAN Chair, did not make any effort to mention China in the SCS disputes in the statement, released after the summit.
In fact, before the summit, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines mentioned that the SCS should be “left untouched”. Clearly this was a polite reminder to the US and other extra-regional powers that ASEAN has chosen the path of negotiation with China as far as disputes in the SCS are concerned. Duterte and most of his fellow ASEAN leaders seem to be right as they prefer to negotiate with China rather than confronting it vigorously for various reasons. One of the reasons is ASEAN’s rigorous economic partnerships with China. In 2016, China-ASEAN trade stood at $368 billion, thereby making China the largest trading partner of the ASEAN. China is also ASEAN’s fourth largest FDI source. On the other hand, ASEAN is China’s third largest trading partner as well as third largest source of FDIs.
In Manila, China and ASEAN celebrated the 20th ASEAN-China Summit and 15 years of the signing of the Declaration of the Code of Conduct in the SCS. At the latest ASEAN-China summit meeting, they signed three documents namely; Declaration for a Decade of Coastal and Maritime Environmental Protection (2017-2017), ASEAN-China Joint Statement on Comprehensively Strengthening Effective Anti-Corruption Cooperation and Joint Statement between ASEAN and China on Further Deepening the Cooperation on Infrastructure Connectivity.
While these documents portray the significant development in ASEAN-China relations, not mentioning China’s stakes in the territorial disputes in the summit statement also demonstrates ASEAN’s weakness. It actually reiterates the vulnerability of ASEAN as a regional institution and showcases the internal divisions prevalent within its members.
Second, apart from China, in any discussion on ASEAN’s external relations, the US comes invariably. President Donald Trump had to leave for the US without attending the East Asia Summit, and definitely it has given rise to one question: Does this non-attendance show Trump’s disinterest in the East Asian security architectureIJ
As far as Trump’s Asia policy is concerned, despite his pro-protectionist view in economy, he emphasised on reciprocity and fairness of trade with the countries in Asia and at the same time, his speeches in the summit invariably show that the US wants the partners in the region to depend on their own resources and capabilities; rather than depending on the US and this change in the US’s policy towards the region has happened following Trump’s “America First” approach.
In addition, Trump focused on the concept of ASEAN centrality to uphold cooperation, which he finds necessary for advancing the security and prosperity of the Americans and the ASEAN countries. In this Asia trip, which ended in Manila on November 14, Trump has chosen to nurture bilateral trade with partner countries. Additionally, US’ withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) had earlier put the reliability of Trump on question, especially with regard to his interest in the region.
Interestingly, the eleven members of the TPP have decided to move ahead with the mega-trade deal without the US. What is, therefore, interesting to note that ASEAN as a regional organisation has given platform to both the RCEP and the TPP and it is to be seen, how the common members of these two groupings deal with the emergence of the mega-trade blocs in the future.
Third, as far as India is concerned, the latest summit offered her a chance to demonstrate its positivity towards the look/Act East Policy (lEP/AEP) and strengthened relations with ASEAN countries. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Manila was an excellent venue to speak about his Make in India, Digital India and other initiatives focusing on start-ups and entrepreneurship.
Connectivity remained an important focus of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he addressed the business community and the Indian Diaspora during his Manila trip. In his speeches, Modi highlighted the issue of regional tourism and maritime transportation. India and ASEAN are, in fact, working towards the early conclusion of the Agreement on Maritime Transport. However, the focus of India-ASEAN relations as reflected through this summit was India’s bilateral relations with the Southeast Asian countries as well as the Quad partners and ASEAN-India Summit level meeting.
Modi separately met the heads of the States from the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Philippines and Brunei and discussed in great detail issues of mutual concerns. With the host, India signed five MoUs in the areas of Defence industry and logistics cooperation, agriculture, MSMEs, cooperation between ICWA and FSI and establishment of ICAR Chair in the University of Philippines.
In his opening statement at the 15th ASEAN-India Summit, Modi assured ASEAN of India’s “steady support towards achieving a rules-based regional security architecture that best attests to the region’s interests and its peaceful development”.
Clearly, India, which aspires to play a significant role in the Indo-Pacific — reflected through its participation in the Quadrilateral dialogue also involving US, Japan, Australia — has made it a point to express its willingness to keep ASEAN at its centre of its Act East Policy.
Fourth, as an institution of regional cooperation, ASEAN has also failed to address the violation of human rights in Myanmar’s Rakhine. The principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries have forced ASEAN to take an ambiguous policy on the issue of illegal immigration and refugee influx from Myanmar to Bangladesh.
Within ASEAN, only Malaysia and, to an extent Indonesia had previously urged Nay Pyi Taw to stop the violence in Rakhine state. As a collective, the failure of ASEAN to address the Rohingya refugee issue has, however, not been a surprise. So far, the understanding is that law and security situation in Rakhine state is primarily an internal issue of Myanmar which has taken shape of a humanitarian crisis facing Bangladesh due to the refugee inflows. Hence, assistance to tackle the crisis related to the large-scale refugee inflows in Bangladesh has been offered by many countries; however, this approach leaves the root of the problem untouched in Rakhine, giving comfort to Myanmar.
In conclusion, it can be said the summit in Manila has reflected on a few of the weaknesses as well as achievements of ASEAN as a regional organisation. The most apparent weaknesses include ASEAN’s inability to address issues of severe national as well as regional cruciality in regard to territorial disputes in the SCS as well as the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. On the other hand, it can be argued that ASEAN has not lost its relevance; in fact, for an emerging regional power like India, ASEAN still plays an important role in shaping its own external policy in the region.
For countries like the US, ASEAN may cease to be a vital organisation with the changes in leadership’s outlook; however, bilateral relations with select Southeast Asian countries are likely to be promoted based on the national interests of both the parties. Having said that, with a combination of opportunities and challenges, ASEAN stands as a symbol of status quo in the region and it will continue to remain so.
(Dr Sampa Kundu is a researcher at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi; and Dr Arenlais an independent analyst based in New Delhi)
