True meaning of Asean joint communiques

The current chair, Malaysia, knew exactly the way to direct the discussion on this sensitive issue, as well as the kind of pushing and pulling needed to finalise this year’s joint communique. 

Unlike the previous Asean chair, Myanmar, Malaysia’s stake as a conflicting partner in the SCS is much higher. Any diplomatic mishap, even slightly during its chairmanship under the present stressful domestic condition, would be a disaster. That also explained why Kuala Lumpur took time to fine-tune the communiqué. It ended up with 11,777 words, second only to the previous year with 12,297 words, the longest in the annals of the 48-year-old grouping.

This day the Asean joint communique, the most important document of the grouping’s annual conference, would not be released ahead of time or at the end, as in the past. One or two days’ delay is considered normal, which is better than “no communique” as in 2012. 

The longer the communique the more the time the drafting committee members needed to finalise the text. Furthermore, it also indicated the nature of discussions and complexities of issues discussed among the Asean members. Obviously, their arguments became more unyielding and tense. 

Under Singapore’s chairmanship in 2008, the document was short with only 5,035 words. When Brunei Darussalam took the Asean helm in 2013, the chair kept the texts at 7,759 words. 

While the 2008 communique had just 64 paragraphs, the latest one was loaded with 164, including issues related to irregular migrants, the Iran nuclear deal and US-Cuba relations. As far as the international issues were concerned, only one issue – the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – remains unchanged over three decades. Asean supports the two-state solution, which has not been realised. Other issues were highlighted and later on resolved, such as the Vietnamese troop withdrawal (1979-1990), the Myanmar crisis (1990-2011), to name a few.  

As Asean moves towards full integration, the joint communique has become a valuable instrument to reflect on the members’ independent views. It is no longer just a boring long declaration on all issues discussed. This time around the Philippines and Indonesia were assertive to ensure that their distinctive views and inputs were mentioned.

In the case of the South China Sea, Malaysia was extremely careful to ensure that interests of all Asean members were well taken care of. This year it took nearly 500 words to describe the SCS situation and the Asean collective concerns. Back in 2008, only 181 words were sufficient to capture the Asean views on the same topic. For the first time, the communique mentioned succinctly the divergent views among the member countries. 

In paragraph 150, the second sentence was clear. “We took note of the serious concerns expressed by some Ministers on the land reclamations in the South China Sea, which have eroded trust and confidence, increased tensions and may undermine peace, security and stability in the South China Sea.”  

Since not all Asean members agreed with the entire description, the communique only “took note” of the views. In the past, it would have been easily deleted. However, they all wanted to stress that the current SCS situations “have eroded trust and confidence”, which has been the building block of the code of conduct (COC) process of all concerned parties.

Unlike the previous statement on the SCS, this time the Asean ministers deemed it necessary that “preventive measures should be undertaken to … enhance trust and confidence amongst parties”. 

These two elements were important outcomes of the latest round of Asean-China senior official meetings in Tienjin. Now the COC process has entered “the next stage of consultation and negotiating the framework, structure, elements as well as to address crucial, difficult and complicated issues relating to the proposed COC.”

Thailand, the outgoing coordinator of Asean-China relations, passed the baton to Singapore last week. Under its guidance, concrete progress was achieved – the move from negative lists toward positive lists, which would form the basis of the COC drafting process. The new coordinator now has worked hard to eradicate the current trust and confidence deficits before this new phase can be kicked off.

At the ministerial meeting, the Philippines briefed its colleagues on the ongoing arbitration case with the UN. Manila undertook this action without consultation with Asean, causing discomfort among members. To give additional emphasis to the universally recognised principles of international law, including the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Philippines’ briefing on the progress of the COC was mentioned.  

To strike a balance, Asean also took note of two Indonesian initiatives. First, Jakarta has submitted a non-paper on China’s desire to sign and ratify the Protocol of Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone without any conditions. Second, it has proposed the establishment of a hotline at a high level between Asean and China. Asean also requests Indonesia to consolidate various proposals on the emerging regional architecture submitted by China, Russia, India as well as Indonesia.

If this pattern holds, next year’s communique will definitely grow longer as Laos takes the chair when the Asean Community is just one day old and the SCS dispute continues.