Squabbles have disturbed nonviolent ASEAN

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.