ASEAN solidarity more surface than subtance

Solidarity was a trait that was always a priority among members of the ASEAN regional grouping. Political scientist J. Soedjati Djiwandono examines the strength of this bond by going over the region's potential flash points and recent events.

JAKARTA (JP): An important part of the widely acclaimed success of ASEAN is their ability to sweep internal problems under the carpet.

I am referring particularly to such intra-ASEAN territorial disputes as that between Indonesia and Malaysia over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan; between Malaysia and Singapore over the island of Batu Puteh; between Indonesia and the Philippines over the island of Mianggas; and, most serious of all, between Malaysia and the Philippines over Sabah -- not to mention their involvement in the claims and counter-claims to sovereignty over the Spratlys in the South China Sea, along with Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam and China.

Occasionally, those disputes do create ripples in the ASEAN waters. However, ASEAN leaders have generally managed to pass over them. They seem to take meticulous care not to damage ASEAN solidarity. The memories of Indonesia's confrontation with Malaysia may still linger in their minds.

One might well wonder, however, how deep and genuine that sense of solidarity really is. In any future conflicts, one should never take it for granted. And no one should rule out the possibility, however remote, that any of those territorial disputes could become a time bomb that might some day may blow apart the ASEAN carpet.

A territorial dispute, however trivial it might appear, touches the most sensitive issue of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is something of which each of the ASEAN states, without exception, is acutely jealous. What may have sounded like an overreaction on the part of the Indonesian government to the abortive international conference in Manila -- which planned to discuss the issue of human rights in East Timor -- attests to this observation.

The bomb might well be set off should any of the ASEAN states no longer see the possibility of reconciling their vital national interests, however perceived, with the regional interests of ASEAN. It would be the limit of the strength of the ASEAN carpet.

"Big brother"

Therefore, more serious attention needs to be given to intra- ASEAN territorial disputes, given the strain on ASEAN solidarity. To be sure, bilateral relations between Indonesia and the Philippines have remained unscathed. It has survived what initially looked like another crisis on East Timor, a sore point in Indonesia's diplomacy for most of the past two decades.

However, the incident has created considerable embarrassment and a nuisance, to say the least, to both Indonesia and the Philippines. One newspaper in the region has accused Indonesia of behaving like a "big brother" towards the Philippines.

Subsequently, a similar conference was planned in Bangkok, and another in Kuala Lumpur. And false reports were circulated that Indonesia had threatened not to attend the 27th ASEAN ministerial meeting in Bangkok. Radio Australia reported Foreign Minister Gareth Evans as saying that Indonesia should reduce its military personnel in East Timor and open a dialog with the so-called "independence fighters".

It does not seem inconceivable, therefore, that efforts are being made, by whomsoever and for whatever ends, to embarrass and to bring pressure to bear on Indonesia by disrupting its relations with its neighbors. This will certainly help to undermine ASEAN solidarity.

The dispute over the Spratlys had likely been touched on the agenda of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), officially meeting for the first time immediately after the ministerial meeting, and may add more strain on ASEAN solidarity. Indeed, dealing with disputes that involve not only ASEAN member states but also external powers, before first facing intra-ASEAN problems head on, does not seem to make much sense.

The strength of the ASEAN carpet, as mentioned earlier, has its limits. It should only serve to create a favorable climate for an eventual peaceful solution of intra-ASEAN conflicts. It should not represent a head-in-the-sand approach.

The writer is a member of board of directors at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.