Stronger talk, more interaction needed to boost East Asia summits

It was the first time that an Asean leader had asked such a straightforward question of the world’s superpower with such a dead-pan face. Obama’s response, in turn, was impressive and demonstrated his knowledge of the subject.

From an Asean perspective, the interactive discussion between Hun Sen and Obama could serve as a template for the enhanced dialogue between the leaders of Asean and dialogue partners, especially in the East Asia Summit (EAS).

At the very least, in future EAS encounters, there should be more time to exchange views among the leaders, focusing on critical issues they wish to raise. Currently, EAS leaders meet for about three hours, depending on the chair. The leaders-only forum, which was launched in Kuala Lumpur in 2005, will be ten years old next year. Malaysia has made clear to its Asean colleagues that an EAS review is in the pipeline during its chair.

Coming amid a proliferation of new collective security frameworks put forward by China, Russia and Indonesia, in recent months, Asean is under pressure to come up with fresh strategic views and security roles, including forging common positions on global issues. Since 2010, Asean has been trying to compile a matrix of “commonalities” on actions and programmes taken up by its members. As it has turned out, the stocktaking exercise proved an almost impossible task due to divergent views among the Asean members. 

However, with new threats such as the challenge of climate change, Islamic States’ extremists and the Ebola pandemic, Asean has rapidly narrowed its gap to present a common voice. 

For instance, Asean and US positions expressed through different forums and recent joint state?ments showed the group’s common positions on climate change and Islamic States extremists.

Apart from these consolidated views, differences also surfaced over the EAS’s future direction. Quite a few Asean members thought the time had come to improve the EAS format to take advantage of the participation by powerful global leaders. Others, mainly the new Asean mem?bers, fear any change would diminish the Asean-driven agenda. They preferred the present format which permits leaders to raise any topic at will. Judging from content discussed over a decade, the EAS has recently taken up more strategic and security issues. 

In the process it has unwittingly pushed down the previously strong development agenda. The first five-years of EAS discussions were a mix of key functional issues such as food and energy security, education, disaster and humanitarian management. At the time, Asean leaders seldom raised strategic issues and chose to focus on functional cooperation.

However, as common threats grew over the years, Asean became more collaborative and united in its views, issuing strongly worded statements on global issues.

After the 2010 expansion of EAS members to include the US and Russia, security and strategic issues such as the Korean Peninsula and the South China Sea disputes have featured on the EAS agenda – despite the efforts to avoid these sensitive issues in earlier years. Non-Asean EAS members also pushed hard to set the annual agenda along with Asean. A recent memorandum prepared by the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) suggested the EAS should be further institutionalised with “a clear vision and roadmap” and serve as the foundation for emerging security architecture.

Other recommendations included extending the EAS meeting for substantive discussions on agreed issues; and allowing other non-EAS members to work out their agenda and co-chair the meeting to provide a sense of ownership. Finally, it called for the establishment of an EAS secretariat to follow-up on policy and progress.

At the moment, other Asean-led security forums comprise the Asean Regional Forum with 27 members and the Asean Defence Ministerial Meeting Plus – with eight members from its dialogue partners. Some of their activities and programmes can overlap and it is necessary for Asean to link them so they will become more effective and avoid duplication, enabling collective security collaboration. As such, other dialogue partners can provide stronger support for Asean positions.

Asean is hoping that with the eight global leaders under one roof, common practices and procedures can be adopted. Previously, Asean tried to ward off the major powers’ involvement, preventing them from entering its backyard. The grouping has long been content to serve as a fulcrum for all to meet in a non-threatening environment.

Now Asean can no longer be a benign host. It has to engage the major powers proactively, helping to shape the emerging security architecture that will strengthen peace and security in the region.