ASEAN and the US – Towards a Working Partnership

US-ASEAN relations are on a roll following the breakthrough US-ASEAN leaders summit convened in Singapore on the fringes of last month’s APEC meeting. But whilst ASEAN certainly gained from the summit in terms of reinforcing the regional association’s geo-political relevance, it isn’t clear that Washington can immediately benefit from the enhanced relationship. This much seemed implicit in remarks made recently in Singapore by the US ambassador to ASEAN, Scot Marciel, who is also Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

Marciel underscored the importance the US attaches to ASEAN’s progress towards closer regional coherence and integration in political, security and economic spheres.  He said that the US “took ASEAN at its word” that it was serious in becoming a stronger and more important regional organization, and that Washington hoped it could soon work with ASEAN in partnership on global issues of non proliferation, climate change and trade liberalization.

But Marciel, whose appointment as the first ambassador to ASEAN indicates the level of Washington’s interest in such a partnership, was also candid about the slow pace of ASEAN’s development, pointing out that member states don’t always speak with one voice and that ASEAN needs to become a more effective organization in order to get things done.

To this end, the US as well as other countries such as Japan, Australia and the European Union are devoting considerable resources to capacity building and support aimed at encouraging ASEAN to become a more coherent and effective regional organization. Things do seem to be moving in the right direct, Marciel told his Singapore audience, but he did not seem to think they were moving fast enough.

Posted by Michael Vatikiotis on December 13, 2009. Respond »

In the News: Jakarta Post Analysis on the Rudd Conference on Asia-Pacific Community

In “It’s a slow boat to Kevin Rudd’s Asia-Pacific village,” Chief Editor Endy Bayuni reported in Monday’s Jakarta Post on the conference convened by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this weekend on “The Asia Pacific: A Community for the 21st Century.”

He writes:

[Rudd] deliberately omitted his own vision of a community, preferring to allow countries to decide together what exactly they want and how they intend to get there. In the absence of a clear vision, however, one inevitably gets the impression that this community is more responsive to events rather than one that decides its own course, a boat that follows where the wind and the rough waters take it without a clear destination, as long as it stays afloat.”

Read the entire opinion here.

Send the Asia Security Initiative blog your thoughts at asiblog at macfound dot org, or through the comment box at the bottom of the post.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on December 7, 2009. Respond »

Special Report: Dalpino on the U.S.-ASEAN Summit

Singapore Read-Out: US-ASEAN Summit – A Credible First Lap

by Catharin Dalpino

The 28-point, all-good-things joint statement of the US-ASEAN Leaders Meeting in Singapore on Sunday reflected a successful lift-off of a new dialogue process. It documented thirty years of episodic relations between ASEAN and the United States, and marked out new areas for cooperation. In the latter category, President Obama invited the members of the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights to the United States in 2010, and proposed a ministerial-level meeting on energy next year as well.

Such statements are negotiated well in advance of the meeting, and the drama is often in small details and subtle shadings. ASEAN leaders welcomed the shift in US policy for Burma that allowed engagement with the government – personified at the meeting by the participation of Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein – and joined the United States in cautioning that 2010 elections in Burma “must be conducted in a free, fair, inclusive and transparent manner in order to be credible to the international community.” However, the statement lacked mention of NLD leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi, much less a request for her release – that would fall to Obama. It was the diplomatic equivalent of a draw.

Some aspects of the statement were more subtle but important nevertheless. Nuclear non-proliferation is a renewed priority in the West in view of developments in North Korea and Iran, and it offered the ASEAN leaders an opportunity to laud the concept of a Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, a proposal that had met with strong US resistance when it first emerged in the 1980s. For its part, Washington was able to echo Obama’s speech in Tokyo last week, with the description of a shared vision of a regional architecture that is “inclusive,” code for a broader Asian-Pacific community rather than one more narrowly limited to Asia that would exclude the United States. 

The joint statement raised three questions, if only in the breech. There was expected praise for US-ASEAN economic cooperation to date, but the statement lacked the rancor visited upon the United States in the APEC forum for perceived protectionism and foot-dragging on free trade agreements. It was also silent on the Obama announcement in Tokyo that it would begin negotiations on US accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Many trade economists support the TPP, but it likely to encounter political problems. It would appear to set aside previous US efforts to negotiate free trade agreements with Thailand and Malaysia; although there is little talk of reviving the US-Thailand FTA at this time, Kuala Lumpur had hoped to bring its negotiations with Washington to fruition in the near future. With its incremental approach, the TPP is not likely to produce an umbrella US-ASEAN FTA, as many of ASEAN’s external partners have done. Lastly, it may meet with resistance from Congress. Just hours after Obama’s speech in Tokyo, some Congressional leaders reacted sharply to the idea of joining a trade regime that would incorporate Vietnam as an early member.

A second issue is regularizing and institutionalizing the US-ASEAN Leaders Meeting. President Obama has invited the ASEAN leaders to the United States for a second round,  but that does not yet establish a schedule. Ideally, ASEAN would like a summit mechanism which brings the President of the United States to Southeast Asia once a year. The rotation of the APEC chair will not allow that – the 2010 meeting will be held in Japan, and in the United States the following year. However, if the United States enters the East Asian Summit, a US-ASEAN meeting could piggy-back on that yearly event. At present, the EAS is anchored in Southeast Asia and hosted by that year’s ASEAN chair.

Lastly, as expected, the US-ASEAN Leaders Meeting did not take up the current Thai-Cambodian dispute as an agenda item. However, the occasion was an opportunity for backroom mediation on the margins of the meeting. Sources indicate that the primary player in that regard at the Singapore meeting was Indonesian President Yudhyono, who is expected to pursue reconciliation between the two countries quietly for the next several weeks.

Such informal diplomacy is occasionally effective, but its ad hoc nature is often discounted in the West as doing little to help ASEAN develop a permanent mechanism for dispute resolution. But what many Westerners perceive as a weakness some ASEAN leaders consider a strength, one that offers extra room to maneuver. To date, however, this concept lacks a common definition. In 1998, when Thailand chaired ASEAN, then-Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan suggested that ASEAN move from the principle of non-interference to a nuanced but more active “flexible engagement.” The proposal was formally rejected at the time but ASEAN has occasionally acceded to the idea in principle, as in 2006 when Myanmar was persuaded by the other members to forego the ASEAN chair. Surin is now Secretary-General of ASEAN, and uniquely positioned to reformulate and reintroduce “flexible engagement.” With elections planned in Burma in 2010, there may be little time to waste.

READER COMMENTS

From Zelda DT Soriano:

Your insights are enlightening. Can you say something about the climate change talks, if there has been any exchange of words, during the US-ASEAN summit? Thanks!

Catharin Dalpino responds:

The US-ASEAN Leaders Meeting joint statement did have a bullet point on climate change, which included a statement that the United State and ASEAN would “work closely to ensure the success of the United Nations Climate Change Conference…” and also that the parties recognized the severe effects of climate change in the (Southeast Asia) region.  However, no new initiatives emerged from the meeting on this score, and it appears that economic issues were a more intense focus.  Additionally, since the Copenhagen conference is a global one, in the lead-up to that event all eyes are on greater powers and their domestic emissions policies.  Climate change isn’t a peripheral issue in US-Southeast Asian relations, but neither is it at the top of the list at this time.  However, there appears to be room in the Obama administration’s relations with ASEAN to make it a more significant factor.”

Posted by Catharin Dalpino on November 18, 2009. Respond »

Special Report: Singapore and Shanghai Visits in Review

In Singapore, APEC Leaders urged the region in their Leaders Declaration to sustain growth and connect the region. The always popular group photo is here.

The Wall Street Journal explores the interaction between U.S. trade policy in Asia and domestic politics. Reuters

noted little progress on climate change at the APEC meetings.  The Straits Times celebrates APEC’s accomplishments.

President Obama attended the first U.S.-ASEAN Summit. Business Week contrasts the positive spirit of the Summit with a more “downbeat” APEC.

As the next host of APEC, Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama spoke at the APEC CEO Summit on APEC’s “continued relevance.”

The highlight of the President’s visit to Shanghai was the Town Hall meeting he held with Chinese students. Watch the video here.

At the Atlantic, James Fallows offers reactions to the Shanghai event.

Posted by Matthew Shannon Stumpf on November 17, 2009. Respond »

Special Report: Rajagopalan on Defining Asia

So, Is President Obama Really Going to Asia?

This week, President Obama is visiting Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing and Seoul. Five cities of global importance that happen to be located in Asia. East Asia, to be precise. We can go back and forth on Singapore, which is located in Southeast Asia but really, to most Asians is like Europe.

A few weeks ago, I wrote from New Delhi about the great distances within my subcontinent-sized country. Today, I look at Obama’s itinerary and reflect on the size of this continent about which several of us have been blogging for the last six months or more. What is Asia? What does it mean to say something or someone is Asian? A landmass, a continent that embraces 4-5-6 civilizations with spillover along all its geographical frontiers can scarcely be imagined so easily, let alone a policy agenda or diplomatic platform evolved for its ‘teeming billions.’

Most people from this continent find the American conflation of ‘Asia’ with ‘East’ or ‘Pacific’ Asia a little annoying. But it’s a hangover from the times not a lifetime ago, when world maps were colour-coded by colonizer and where regions were named according to their distance from Europe (Near East, Far East, Middle East). Equally, the terms West Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia have little resonance for people from the regions, who usually resent being lumped with others into a category—but at least they are geographically somewhat precise. And they take cognizance of distance, diversity and difference of interest.

President Obama is visiting Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing and Seoul. Really, he is visiting East Asia. Far away from the realities of people in Tehran. In Sharjah. In Kandy. In Paro. In Almaty. In Chennai, for that matter. He cannot go everywhere, that’s fine; but let’s understand that his visit has different kinds and different levels of significance for all these people.

President Obama’s discussions will mostly be on bilateral issues. However, since most of these capitals belong to the same one or two regional security complexes, some issues will be discussed more than once and from more than one perspective. But they will still be East Asian issues from East Asian perspectives. And many of them will have neither relevance nor interest to people in other parts of Asia.

Moreover, when the President stops over at the APEC Forum, he will still not be talking with Asia’s leaders. He will be talking with leaders of states around the Pacific and then one or two others. The composition of APEC is not an accident of history; there was a conscious decision to keep a good part of Asia out of the organization.

But APEC is made of many important global players and when they speak they will speak about matters of global importance to a global audience. They will not, however speak for most of Asia and they will certainly not speak to most of Asia’s pressing economic, political and security problems.

Perhaps American interests would be best served if policymakers could start to disaggregate ‘Asia’ and ‘Asian’ in their minds, taking real cognizance of the mind-boggling range of identities and interests here. Hyping this visit as an Asian excursion overstates the reach of this itinerary or any diplomatic agenda the President could possibly have.

International relations scholars like summit diplomacy and the high table of international politics because so much else that we study is abstract, intangible and as we now like to say, ‘constructed:’ constructed by law like the state, constructed by polemics like the nation or constructed by scholars like anarchy and neorealism. But the real value of summit meetings can only be decided on a case by case basis. Perhaps the Obama visit will bring something fresh, something bold to the international politics of East Asia; but until we see that it does, let the buyer beware …

Posted by Swarna Rajagopalan on November 15, 2009. Respond »