TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
Return to regionalism best way to improve ASEAN efficacy
By Li Kaisheng 2015-8-11 0:53:01
Illustration: Liu Rui/GT
The just concluded ASEAN Foreign Ministerial Meeting and ASEAN Regional Forum are important components of the ASEAN-led "10+X" framework.
This framework stems from the "10+3" meeting between the 10 countries of ASEAN and three outside countries that were China, Japan and South Korea in an effort to deal with the Southeast Asian financial crisis in 1997. In 2005 when the first East Asia Summit was convened, Australia, New Zealand and India were introduced into the framework. In 2011, the "X" was expanded into "8" along with the US and Russia joining.
However, with the enlargement of membership, "10+X" seems to be losing its efficacy. When the framework was still "10+3," the 13 countries reached a series of agreements in boosting financial and economic cooperation, on which mutual trust in terms of politics and national security also made progress. The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed in 2002 was a significant achievement.
However, with more countries included in the framework, this multilateral platform, which is designed for cooperation, has become an arena of competition. As this year's Foreign Ministerial Meeting has shown, wrangles and debates have permeated the agenda.
East and Southeast Asia are overshadowed by complicated geopolitical climate and a lack of effective mechanisms for interaction. Under this circumstance, the multilateral framework led by ASEAN is a hard-won platform whose value and effectiveness should be properly explored. It needs three actions.
First, ASEAN's leadership should be maintained within the framework. It is a realistic choice to make ASEAN the pilot because major-power participants in this regional framework will hardly compromise as they have too many disputed interests.
However, problems have come with the expansion. ASEAN has a smaller say in the framework. As a small horse, it finds increasingly difficult to haul a larger cart.
Second, the framework should stick to regionalism. As a regional framework that is committed to resolving East and Southeast Asia-related issues, it shouldn't try to lay its hands on issues beyond its boundaries.
However, the broader involvement of more countries into the framework has already drawn in many cross-regional disputes. The Sino-US rivalry is the most prominent one.
Although Beijing and Washington won't use this multilateral framework as the main stage for their bilateral issues, their behavior on this stage will be affected by their relationship. More complications will appear around many thorny issues, and the framework is unable to handle all of them.
Third, the framework should adopt a proper approach to involving itself in regional issues. The reason why the "10+3" framework can be useful is that it focuses on many fields where different members have the most common interests, such as economy, finance and non-traditional security.
Later on, the framework started to lose its efficacy, because it has diverted too much attention to traditional security issues, such as the South China Sea disputes.
Under proper conditions, it is necessary for a multilateral platform to get involved in traditional security issues, but when it comes to territorial disputes where all parties hardly compromise, the optimal function of a regional platform is probably to offer opportunities to create mutual trust for each side, instead of meddling in these affairs and giving up neutrality.
Therefore, in order to make sure the "10+X" framework can regain its validity, we should get its regionalism back and reactivate the "10+3" framework. We also need to rearrange the agenda especially in terms of the central topics, shifting the attention from difficult traditional security issues to other issues in respect of economy, finance and non-traditional security.
The change can only be done when ASEAN is willing to think otherwise. It should abandon the old mind-set that seeks a balance between major powers, and commit itself to realistic cooperation.
ASEAN should note that East and Southeast Asia is where its leverage matters. It has a major say only when it wields its power within its capabilities.
If ASEAN ignores its limits, it will only end up being a tool and victim of superpower games.
By Li Kaisheng 2015-8-11 0:53:01
Illustration: Liu Rui/GT
The just concluded ASEAN Foreign Ministerial Meeting and ASEAN Regional Forum are important components of the ASEAN-led "10+X" framework.
This framework stems from the "10+3" meeting between the 10 countries of ASEAN and three outside countries that were China, Japan and South Korea in an effort to deal with the Southeast Asian financial crisis in 1997. In 2005 when the first East Asia Summit was convened, Australia, New Zealand and India were introduced into the framework. In 2011, the "X" was expanded into "8" along with the US and Russia joining.
However, with the enlargement of membership, "10+X" seems to be losing its efficacy. When the framework was still "10+3," the 13 countries reached a series of agreements in boosting financial and economic cooperation, on which mutual trust in terms of politics and national security also made progress. The Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed in 2002 was a significant achievement.
However, with more countries included in the framework, this multilateral platform, which is designed for cooperation, has become an arena of competition. As this year's Foreign Ministerial Meeting has shown, wrangles and debates have permeated the agenda.
East and Southeast Asia are overshadowed by complicated geopolitical climate and a lack of effective mechanisms for interaction. Under this circumstance, the multilateral framework led by ASEAN is a hard-won platform whose value and effectiveness should be properly explored. It needs three actions.
First, ASEAN's leadership should be maintained within the framework. It is a realistic choice to make ASEAN the pilot because major-power participants in this regional framework will hardly compromise as they have too many disputed interests.
However, problems have come with the expansion. ASEAN has a smaller say in the framework. As a small horse, it finds increasingly difficult to haul a larger cart.
Second, the framework should stick to regionalism. As a regional framework that is committed to resolving East and Southeast Asia-related issues, it shouldn't try to lay its hands on issues beyond its boundaries.
However, the broader involvement of more countries into the framework has already drawn in many cross-regional disputes. The Sino-US rivalry is the most prominent one.
Although Beijing and Washington won't use this multilateral framework as the main stage for their bilateral issues, their behavior on this stage will be affected by their relationship. More complications will appear around many thorny issues, and the framework is unable to handle all of them.
Third, the framework should adopt a proper approach to involving itself in regional issues. The reason why the "10+3" framework can be useful is that it focuses on many fields where different members have the most common interests, such as economy, finance and non-traditional security.
Later on, the framework started to lose its efficacy, because it has diverted too much attention to traditional security issues, such as the South China Sea disputes.
Under proper conditions, it is necessary for a multilateral platform to get involved in traditional security issues, but when it comes to territorial disputes where all parties hardly compromise, the optimal function of a regional platform is probably to offer opportunities to create mutual trust for each side, instead of meddling in these affairs and giving up neutrality.
Therefore, in order to make sure the "10+X" framework can regain its validity, we should get its regionalism back and reactivate the "10+3" framework. We also need to rearrange the agenda especially in terms of the central topics, shifting the attention from difficult traditional security issues to other issues in respect of economy, finance and non-traditional security.
The change can only be done when ASEAN is willing to think otherwise. It should abandon the old mind-set that seeks a balance between major powers, and commit itself to realistic cooperation.
ASEAN should note that East and Southeast Asia is where its leverage matters. It has a major say only when it wields its power within its capabilities.
If ASEAN ignores its limits, it will only end up being a tool and victim of superpower games.
