Squabbles have disturbed nonviolent ASEAN<\/p>\n
Daljit Singh, Senior Research Fellow Institute of Southeast Asian
\nStudies, The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore<\/p>\n
The picture of unity among the Association of Southeast Asian
\nNations (ASEAN) has been somewhat spoilt in recent months by
\nbilateral spats between members.<\/p>\n
Singapore and Malaysia argue over water. Malaysia offended
\nIndonesia and the Philippines with the way its police expelled
\nillegal Indonesian and Filipino migrants. Thailand and Myanmar
\ncontinue to have border disputes.<\/p>\n
Observers unacquainted with ASEAN ask if such public
\nsquabbling will damage ASEAN. They are surprised when they find
\nthat the answer is: Not much.<\/p>\n
But that is the reality: Conceived in the throes of Cold War
\nconflict, ASEAN has traditionally sought to avoid being held
\nhostage to the bilateral quarrels of its members.<\/p>\n
Rather, its attitude has been to seek and advance areas of
\ncommon interest despite the existence of bilateral problems.
\nWithout this approach, the grouping of developing nations would
\nnot have been able to progress.<\/p>\n
Consider for instance the fact that key members of ASEAN had
\nbeen at war, near war or suffering from the trauma of separation
\n(in the case of Singapore and Malaysia) only a few years before
\nthe organization was established in 1967.<\/p>\n
It was necessary to stay clear of the legacy of bilateral
\nbitterness and to focus instead on shared interests.<\/p>\n
Bilateral problems between member states have occurred
\nthroughout ASEAN's history. They have included, just to mention a
\nfew, the Philippines-Malaysia dispute over Sabah; Indonesian
\nclaims to the Malaysian islands of Sipadan and Ligitan; the
\nfracas between Singapore and the Philippines over the execution
\nhere of Filipina maid Flor Contemplacion; and the Malaysia-
\nSingapore row over the state visit of Israeli President Herzog to
\nSingapore.<\/p>\n
These rows did not prevent ASEAN from making remarkable
\nadvances in regional cooperation and progressively enhancing its
\ninternational stature from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the regional framework provided by ASEAN with its vast
\nnetworking and commitments through formal agreements and informal
\nunderstandings in many areas has served to contain bilateral
\ndisputes.<\/p>\n
Although ASEAN as an organization has not wanted to be
\ninvolved in the bilateral disputes of its members, it has from
\nthe beginning placed high premium on the need for members to
\nresolve or manage them with care and sensitivity.<\/p>\n
The Asian financial and economic crisis in 1997-1998 left in
\nits wake economic wreckage and political instability from which
\nbilateral relations also suffered.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the worst period in this respect was 1998-1999 when
\nseveral bilateral relationships were strained simultaneously --
\nbetween Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, Malaysia
\nand Indonesia, and Malaysia and the Philippines.<\/p>\n
Yet the numerous ASEAN meetings continued, not just with a
\n\"business as usual\" attitude but with even more focus, in an
\neffort to find a way out of the problems afflicting the members.<\/p>\n
It was during these difficult years that ASEAN developed
\nimportant new initiatives like the ASEAN Plus Three process,
\nwhich added China, Japan and South Korea as ASEAN's dialogue
\npartners.<\/p>\n
From 1999, the group also focused attention on helping the
\nfour new ASEAN members -- Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam --
\nintegrate quickly.<\/p>\n
The situation today, in terms of both bilateral relationships
\nand the general fortunes of ASEAN, is not as bad as it was in
\n1998-1999, though perceptions may still need to catch up with
\nreality.<\/p>\n
The coming ASEAN summit in Cambodia in November will show that
\nASEAN remains seized with the big issues important to all
\nmembers, such as the promotion of tourism and the integration of
\nthe new members.<\/p>\n
It is often forgotten that troubled bilateral relationships do
\nnot necessarily mean trouble across the board. Cooperation
\nusually continues in other areas.<\/p>\n
For instance, the good relationship between the defense forces
\nof Indonesia and Singapore has remained unaffected by the ups and
\ndowns in the political relationship since 1998. And behind the
\napparent tensions in Singapore-Malaysia relations, cooperation
\nbetween police and intelligence services on crime and terrorism
\nhas continued.<\/p>\n
However, if bilateral squabbles and the way they are handled
\nare not central to ASEAN's fortunes, they should not be viewed as
\nentirely irrelevant either.<\/p>\n
It cannot be denied that the quarrels of recent years,
\ncharacterized as they sometimes have been by a certain stridency
\nof nationalism and seeming carelessness about possible
\nconsequences, did add to the adverse perceptions of ASEAN abroad,
\neven if domestic political instability and economic decline were
\nprobably the more important factors.<\/p>\n
Before the mid-1990s, when ASEAN basked in the glory of its
\nachievements and its international stature, the \"cushion\" that
\nallowed it to get away with ill-managed bilateral quarrels was
\nmuch bigger than it is today.<\/p>\n
ASEAN countries need to bear this in mind as the group seeks
\nto recover its international credibility.<\/p>\n
Apart from faster regional economic integration, better
\ndomestic economic performance and political stability, more care
\ngiven by members to the management of bilateral problems in
\naccordance with the norms and spirit of ASEAN will not be amiss.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/squabbles-have-disturbed-nonviolent-asean-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}