ASEAN is Neither the Problem Nor the Solution to South China Sea Disputes
There are reasons to question why SCS disputes should be considered “central” to ASEAN or that ASEAN should have a unified position on the disputes. While ASEAN failed to issue a joint communiqué in 2012 over the SCS issue, this does not mean the issue ha
- PDF / 136,520 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 419.527 x 595.276 pts Page_size
- 15 Downloads / 178 Views
e views expressed here are entirely personal. Satu Limaye gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Neil Datar and Clarence Cabanero. S. Limaye (*) Director, East West Center in Washington and Senior Advisor, CNA Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, USA e-mail: [email protected], http://www.eastwestcenter.org/aboutewc/directory/satu.limaye © The Author(s) 2018 G. Rozman, J.C. Liow (eds.), International Relations and Asia’s Southern Tier, Asan–Palgrave Macmillan Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3171-7_7
95
96
S. LIMAYE
This analysis argues that there are several reasons to question why the SCS disputes should be considered “central” to ASEAN or that ASEAN should have a unified position on the disputes. The fact that ASEAN failed for the first time in its history to issue a joint communiqué in 2012 due to disagreements on the SCS issue does not mean the issue has “centrality” to ASEAN or that ASEAN is a useless organization. However, there are also arguments for why ASEAN should be coherent and responsible regarding the SCS, and limited signs that it is increasingly becoming so. This balance is nuanced and subject to change given shifting and complex dynamics of the disputes themselves. But a more sustainable assessment of the impact for ASEAN of the SCS’s disputes can be made if one evaluates the main arguments about the purposes, challenges, and prospects of ASEAN itself. Set against these arguments, the implications of the SCS disputes for ASEAN are very different. And there are some surprises, including the very low salience of the SCS issue in discussions about the future of ASEAN. If one takes the position that ASEAN should be what the charter lays out—a community—then unity on the South China Sea is a logical objective. And yet, given the first-order challenges confronting the creation of a true ASEAN community, SCS disputes are the least of ASEAN’s communitybuilding problems. If one thinks ASEAN should set its sights on simply sharing a diplomatic voice and facilitating cooperation among members and with external partners, then one would not worry too much about ASEAN’s “all-over-the-map” perspectives and actions on the SCS. Yet, these minimal goals would suggest more coherence on SCS disputes than has been shown to date, i.e., a truly “shared voice.” There is a paradox: If one has big ambitions (a community) for ASEAN, then unity on this issue is a logical ultimate though not immediate goal; if one has minimal goals for ASEAN (a shared voice and cooperation), then unity on South China Sea disputes does not matter much but does detract in a more visible way from the achievement of these goals. If one has a “middle-of-the-road” ambition for ASEAN, thinking of it first and foremost as a nation and state building project with adherence to lowest common denominator norms, incremental regionalism, and pragmatism, ASEAN’s position on the SCS is “Goldilocks right.” If one thinks ASEAN’s problems are mostly internal cohesion and capacity and not external relations, then SCS tensions are doubly
Data Loading...
