Would a Khmer Rouge killer be qualified as an intellectual ASEAN leader?

Comrade Hun Xen was a former cadre of the Khmer Rouge regime known for killing almost 2 million Cambodians (Photo: Reuters)

New intellectual leader emerges for ASEAN

Monday, June 28, 2010
By Kavi Chongkittavorn
The Nation

The dramatic departure of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week and the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatomaya earlier have effectively unplugged their nascent plans of constructing a new regional architecture. ASEAN, therefore, is the direct beneficiary of their downfall.

For nearly two years, ASEAN leaders were dragged into the debates unprepared and did several rounds of soul-searching. Member states found themselves united and at odds with one another examining national interest that has broader regional contexts. They ended up with a new mantra, known as the ASEAN Centrality.

Without the constant pushing of the two powerful dialogue countries, the question remains whether ASEAN should go slow or move forward full throttle to gain a consensus as early as possible on the new regional architecture. If the past is any judge, ASEAN tends to move quicker and consolidate faster with external pressure or crisis looming large.

Apparently, majority of ASEAN members would go for the latter approach as discussions were held already in quite comprehensive ways. Minor divergent views still need to be ironed out before a consensus can be reached. At the next ASEAN ministerial meeting in Hanoi, which is only three weeks away, the new regional architecture issue will top the agenda. The decision will subsequently reflect on the statement of 17th ASEAN summit.

To do that, ASEAN has to bridge their perceptions over the role of major powers, their pros and cons as well as formats that the grouping wishes to see them fit in. Without fanfare, Singapore Prime Miniser Lee Hsien Loong presented the ASEAN-plus-eight plan at the last summit in April. The U.S. and Russia will be invited to join the grouping's major dialogue partners including China, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand and Australia. The ASEAN-plus-eight summit will take place when the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Meeting meet in an Asian country.

This format, Singapore believes, would enable a U.S. president to attend an ASEAN-led summit. That has been the focus of the debate as ASEAN realizes the importance of a U.S. presidential attendance. But a question can be raised for instance if South Korea is hosting the APEC meeting, will the host provide the hospitality for all delegates from Cambodia, Laos and Burma? Certainly, this issue could be solved if they join APEC later this year in Yokohama. ASEAN will certainly push hard for such aim.

On the other hand, in mid-January this year, Indonesia floated the idea of an expanded East Asia Summit (EAS). The leaders' forum, founded in Kuala Lumpur in 2005, discuss strategic and transnational issues. It is an existing ASEAN-led forum. The U.S. and Russia would be invited to join.

Russia has been consistent in wanting to join EAS while the U.S. has expressed interest but without any clear action. Recently, Canada and EU indicated a similar interest.

At the May meeting in Hoi An, ASEAN senior officials found it extremely difficult to choose either formula for the inclusion of the world's two superpowers. The ASEAN chair, Vietnam, Indonesia and Laos prefer the expanded EAS. Singapore and Cambodia strongly back the ASEAN plus eight along with potential support from Philippines and Burma. Thailand, Brunei and Malaysia need additional information to come up with their positions.

When the foreign ministers meet in Hanoi next month, these positions would certainly shift and change. A consensus would have to be reached eventually. Strong posturing and lobbying are visible from Singapore and Indonesia over their favorite formulas. In fact, their differences are minimal. Fear of losing the influence of ASEAN and its centrality is greater in the ASEAN plus eight. With the U.S. and Russia, an expanded EAS would help forge common views on global issues with the fulcrum in ASEAN. There were often cited justifications for or lack of support.

In the past, Singapore has been the uncontested intellectual leader of ASEAN providing new ideas related to economic and security matters to reinvent and make ASEAN relevant to the global community. The ASEAN Regional Forum and Asia Europe Meeting are such hallmarks. It used to be a given that Singapore's proposed plans would eventually morph into ASEAN plans.

This time, however, there is a new regional environment with democratic Indonesia. It has come up with many bold and liberal ideas of its own regarding ASEAN. Indonesia played crucial parts in pushing for the drafting of a charter and security community in ASEAN. Gone were the days when it used to be ridiculed as the grouping's smallest denominator, now it has become its biggest denominator that can inspire the rest of ASEAN. Jakarta's growing confidence in its own democratic development has already transferred to diplomacy towards ASEAN and major powers. Indonesian civil society groups, the region's largest, have been the most active in ASEAN in pushing for people-oriented agenda including human rights and climate changes.

Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has repeatedly stressed the importance of ASEAN in Indonesian foreign policy in his interview with the author at the end of last year. Indonesia switching the ASEAN chair with Brunei for next year was another testimony. The move aims to achieve twin objectives of regional and global leadership. With the ASEAN chair next year, Indonesia has ample time to devote all the energy to host the G-20 and APEC summits in 2013. To become the Brussels of the East is no longer far-fetched.

In the end, the role of potential intellectual leader in ASEAN as perceived by fellow ASEAN members would be a decisive factor to swing the decision on either option. Thailand will use this benchmark as one of the criteria for its decision.