Cambodia remains Asean’s maverick

As a non-conflicting party and once the darling of Asean’s political achievement, Cambodia stands out. Once again it has placed the group at the edge of precipice. Nobody knows what will happen on 26 July, when the 49th Asean joint communique is scheduled for release after the end of their ministerial meeting. Albeit a newcomer, Cambodian Foreign Minister Prak Sokhon has as good a rapport with his Asean colleagues as the outgoing Hor Namhong. He will play a crucial role in the formulation of the Asean position. More than ever before, this forthcoming communique will be closely scrutinised and followed, as it will indicate how each member will collaborate with one another, as well as the whole gamut of Asean’s external relations. 

Sessions have been scheduled throughout this week in Vientiane, ahead of the annual Asean foreign ministers’ meeting, to ensure that all senior Asean officials and various drafting committees have sufficient time to smooth out their differences on the maritime conflict and mull over the aftermath of the PAC decision. Despite all the doomsday scenarios and insults from abroad regarding the group’s response, Asean members have generally been cool headed and rational. This temperament allows the conflicting parties, China and the Philippines, to work out their differences in an amicable way. It must be reiterated here that the attitude of the new administration in Manila toward China has strengthened overall Asean solidarity. Beijing is more inclined to respond to the Philippines when it is identified with Asean, than an overall alignment with US positions, as was the case with the previous administration

Truth be told, right after the Philippines circulated a draft joint statement followed the PAC decision by taking note of the outcome with details of Asean positions at Kunming, Cambodia was the only member that opposed the draft. The rest thought that the statement was sufficient enough to depict the importance of the international rule of law that Asean adheres to. Cambodia, however, did not want any word related to the arbitration ruling to appear on the document.

As such, each Asean country, except Cambodia, decided to come out with a separate statement in response to the ruling from the PAC in The Hague. Taken altogether, these statements reflect the depth of Asean spirit and conscience to maintain peace and stability in the region. Although all of the statements touched on the often cited Asean positions regarding respect for international law, calling for self-restraint and non-militarisation, as well as the full implication of action plans containing the 2002 signed documents, one could easily detect emphasis on issues and areas of each Asean member’s choosing.

Among all the statements by non-claimants, Myanmar’s one was the most forward-looking. The National League of Democracy-led government took note of the award and said it was studying its impacts. It said that as a member of rules-based organisation, Nay Pyi Taw was committed to the principle of the rule of law in the conduct of its foreign policy. This was the first public statement ever by Myanmar in response to a major international decision, a departure from the benign diplomatic posture of previous years. It bore the trademark of State Counsellor and Foreign Minister Aung San Suu Kyi.

Singapore also took note of the outcome through comments by its Foreign Ministry spokesman to a media inquiry, and the details were similar with other Asean members’ statements, which called for all parties to respect international laws, including UNCLOS 1982.

Thailand, which came out with a statement two and half hours ahead of the PAC ruling, had the most general wording of all the Asean statements. Obviously, Bangkok did not want to associate itself with the PAC decision. Interestingly, Indonesia’s position was much softer than those taken prior to the award. 

Unlike the rest of Asean, Jakarta also reiterated the group’s long-standing desire to establish a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. In the early 1970s, this framework was prominent as an instrument to prevent major powers from meddling with regional politics. Today, competition among them has intensified causing regional uncertainty and disability.

Among the claimants, both the Philippines and Vietnam welcomed the PAC award but without stirring up the nationalistic sentiment as often occurred in the past. Malaysia took note of the decision and cited all relevant known positions in Asean. Brunei’s statement, which was not widely circulated, did not mention the ruling at all, but it did go into details on Asean’s ongoing efforts to manage conflicts in the South China Sea.

With different stands within the grouping, Laos, the current Asean chair, is under severe pressure to garner a consensus on the maritime conflict – and live up to the expectation of its colleagues and international supporters. Halfway through its chairmanship, so far the chair (Vientiane) has proved it can handle sensitive issues under pressure without losing sight of Asean centrality and collective interests. But it remains to be seen how these nuances will play out under the watch of new Laotian Foreign Minister Salaeumxay Kommasith, a career diplomat, who has the same tenacity as his predecessor, Thongloun Sisoulith, the current prime minister, to get the much needed consensus. As such, it is expected that the joint communique will be issued on schedule.