Squabbles have disturbed nonviolent ASEAN

Daljit Singh, Senior Research Fellow Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

The picture of unity among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been somewhat spoilt in recent months by bilateral spats between members.

Singapore and Malaysia argue over water. Malaysia offended Indonesia and the Philippines with the way its police expelled illegal Indonesian and Filipino migrants. Thailand and Myanmar continue to have border disputes.

Observers unacquainted with ASEAN ask if such public squabbling will damage ASEAN. They are surprised when they find that the answer is: Not much.

But that is the reality: Conceived in the throes of Cold War conflict, ASEAN has traditionally sought to avoid being held hostage to the bilateral quarrels of its members.

Rather, its attitude has been to seek and advance areas of common interest despite the existence of bilateral problems. Without this approach, the grouping of developing nations would not have been able to progress.

Consider for instance the fact that key members of ASEAN had been at war, near war or suffering from the trauma of separation (in the case of Singapore and Malaysia) only a few years before the organization was established in 1967.

It was necessary to stay clear of the legacy of bilateral bitterness and to focus instead on shared interests.

Bilateral problems between member states have occurred throughout ASEAN's history. They have included, just to mention a few, the Philippines-Malaysia dispute over Sabah; Indonesian claims to the Malaysian islands of Sipadan and Ligitan; the fracas between Singapore and the Philippines over the execution here of Filipina maid Flor Contemplacion; and the Malaysia- Singapore row over the state visit of Israeli President Herzog to Singapore.

These rows did not prevent ASEAN from making remarkable advances in regional cooperation and progressively enhancing its international stature from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.

Indeed, the regional framework provided by ASEAN with its vast networking and commitments through formal agreements and informal understandings in many areas has served to contain bilateral disputes.

Although ASEAN as an organization has not wanted to be involved in the bilateral disputes of its members, it has from the beginning placed high premium on the need for members to resolve or manage them with care and sensitivity.

The Asian financial and economic crisis in 1997-1998 left in its wake economic wreckage and political instability from which bilateral relations also suffered.

Indeed, the worst period in this respect was 1998-1999 when several bilateral relationships were strained simultaneously -- between Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, Malaysia and Indonesia, and Malaysia and the Philippines.

Yet the numerous ASEAN meetings continued, not just with a "business as usual" attitude but with even more focus, in an effort to find a way out of the problems afflicting the members.

It was during these difficult years that ASEAN developed important new initiatives like the ASEAN Plus Three process, which added China, Japan and South Korea as ASEAN's dialogue partners.

From 1999, the group also focused attention on helping the four new ASEAN members -- Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam -- integrate quickly.

The situation today, in terms of both bilateral relationships and the general fortunes of ASEAN, is not as bad as it was in 1998-1999, though perceptions may still need to catch up with reality.

The coming ASEAN summit in Cambodia in November will show that ASEAN remains seized with the big issues important to all members, such as the promotion of tourism and the integration of the new members.

It is often forgotten that troubled bilateral relationships do not necessarily mean trouble across the board. Cooperation usually continues in other areas.

For instance, the good relationship between the defense forces of Indonesia and Singapore has remained unaffected by the ups and downs in the political relationship since 1998. And behind the apparent tensions in Singapore-Malaysia relations, cooperation between police and intelligence services on crime and terrorism has continued.

However, if bilateral squabbles and the way they are handled are not central to ASEAN's fortunes, they should not be viewed as entirely irrelevant either.

It cannot be denied that the quarrels of recent years, characterized as they sometimes have been by a certain stridency of nationalism and seeming carelessness about possible consequences, did add to the adverse perceptions of ASEAN abroad, even if domestic political instability and economic decline were probably the more important factors.

Before the mid-1990s, when ASEAN basked in the glory of its achievements and its international stature, the "cushion" that allowed it to get away with ill-managed bilateral quarrels was much bigger than it is today.

ASEAN countries need to bear this in mind as the group seeks to recover its international credibility.

Apart from faster regional economic integration, better domestic economic performance and political stability, more care given by members to the management of bilateral problems in accordance with the norms and spirit of ASEAN will not be amiss.