EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) building is a long journey. For continued relevance and impact, the AEC must remain dynamic while taking into consideration evolving contexts and emerging opportunities and challenges.
• Notable progress has been made under the two AEC Blueprints (2015 and 2025), particularly in laying down the frameworks for regional economic integration and community building. Nonetheless, gaps remain in implementation, calling for a more streamlined but result-oriented agenda and stronger institutional coordination.
• Today, the AEC is faced with a markedly different context and unprecedented challenges resulting from a poly-crisis, involving geo-economic fragmentation, supply chain restructuring, and climactic changes. Without adjustment, ASEAN’s pillar and sector-centric approach can be expected to fall short in effectively responding to these challenges.
• As AEC 2025 enters its final quarter, ASEAN needs to recalibrate its priorities. It also increasingly needs to take a whole-of-community approach to integration, as issues and their solutions are spread across multiple sectors. Furthermore, as it develops the AEC Post-2025 agenda, it needs to strike a balance between ambition and pragmatism, and to support substance with institutions and processes.
Trends in Southeast Asia 2024/7, March 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The clean energy transition momentum is gathering pace globally, and in Southeast Asia as well. The transition is dependent on an uninterrupted supply of critical minerals and metals that are essential for the production of low-carbon technologies.
• The supply of critical minerals is impeded by several constraints. First is the dominance of a handful of countries in both the upstream and downstream parts of the supply chain. Second is the current geopolitical race to secure supplies leading to greater protectionist behaviours, exhibited through export bans and trade impediments.
• This study focuses on four selected critical minerals which are important to the region. Two criteria are used in determining a mineral having high significance: (1) There are significant deposits of it which can be tapped on to bolster Southeast Asia’s strategic position in the supply chains; and (2) It is an essential input in industries and sectors of importance in Southeast Asia. The four critical minerals examined in this study are: copper, nickel, bauxite (alumina), and rare earth elements (REEs).
• The study makes three recommendations to enhance ASEAN’s role in the critical minerals supply chains. The first addresses the insufficiency of investments in early-stage exploration and exploitation of critical minerals and, in the process, calls for an embracing of circular economy principles. The second appeals for investments at all stages, including in technology to tap into downstream activities beyond refining and purification, and in the manufacturing of component parts such as battery cell storage and permanent magnets. The third calls for improvements in sustainability management in the mining sector, which is generally extremely environmentally and socially damaging to communities.
Trends in Southeast Asia 2024/3, February 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Indonesia’s Chairmanship in 2023 has advanced the AOIP’s implementation through tangible projects and activities, thereby elevating the AOIP as a pivotal platform for promoting ASEAN’s central role.
- Beyond Indonesia’s Chairmanship, ASEAN needs to prioritise a consistent and impactful implementation of the AOIP across successive Chairmanships. This is essential to solidify the AOIP’s standing as a strategic document to reinforce ASEAN’s central role in the region.
- To advance the AOIP and ensure its ongoing strategic relevance, ASEAN can adopt some key strategies. These include assuming a leadership role in implementation, formulating a multi-year work plan, maintaining a commitment to quality-focused approaches, transforming bilateral activities into regional projects, and establishing a dedicated fund.
- While the AOIP alone may not fully address escalating strategic competition, leveraging ASEAN-led mechanisms for its implementation positions the organisation as a “bridge-builder”. This role allows ASEAN to actively contribute to inclusive multilateral solutions, and foster dialogue and cooperation among regional powers.
* Joanne Lin is Co-coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, and Lead Researcher (Political-Security) at the Centre.
ISEAS Perspective 2024/9, 2 February 2024
INTRODUCTION
ASEAN embraced the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP)[1] in 2019 as a strategic response to escalating geopolitical tensions[2] and the growing influence of major powers in the region. The Outlook reflects ASEAN’s commitment to maintaining its centrality and leading role in the region by promoting its mechanisms and adhering to key principles such as inclusivity, openness, and a rules-based framework.
Specifically, the Outlook aims to foster practical and tangible cooperation with ASEAN’s external partners in four key areas: maritime cooperation, economic, connectivity, and sustainable development. Despite Indonesia’s advocacy and support from ASEAN’s dialogue partners, the initial implementation faced criticism for its sluggish progress and perceived lack of concrete initiatives during the first four years.
Apart from discussions and sporadic activities[3] with dialogue partners, there was no course of action for the implementation of the AOIP until November 2022, when ASEAN leaders adopted the Declaration on Mainstreaming Four Priority Areas of The ASEAN Outlook on The Indo-Pacific within ASEAN-Led Mechanisms.[4] The declaration acknowledged the need for collective leadership with ASEAN to proactively address emerging challenges in the region. It also endorsed a List of Criteria on Mainstreaming the AOIP (an internal document) to implement the four priority areas of the AOIP through ASEAN-led mechanisms such as the ASEAN Plus-One, ASEAN Plus Three (APT), East Asia Summit (EAS), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus).
This development helped set the stage for Indonesia’s Chairmanship in 2023 to advance AOIP’s implementation through tangible projects and activities. A notable achievement was the inaugural ASEAN Indo-Pacific Forum in September 2023[5] focusing on green infrastructure and resilient supply chains, sustainable and innovative financing, digital transformation and the creative economy. The Forum brought together ASEAN member states and external partners and reportedly identified 93 cooperation projects worth US$38.2 billion, with an additional 73 potential projects amounting to US$17.8 billion.[6]
For the first time since the AOIP’s adoption, the initiative seems to yield tangible benefits to the region, attracting new commitments by ASEAN’s external partners. As a result, regional leaders increasingly recognise the AOIP as a pivotal platform for promoting ASEAN’s central role and mechanisms.[7] The initiative has also been praised by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who commended it for being “omnidirectional and inclusive”.[8]
Despite the success of the Forum, questions linger regarding the AOIP’s effectiveness in shaping the regional architecture as well as in addressing current and future geostrategic challenges. There are also uncertainties in the prospect of advancing the AOIP beyond Indonesia’s Chairmanship. This Perspective addresses these questions and explores potential strategies for ASEAN to ensure the continued relevance and successful implementation of the AOIP across all chairmanships.
ASSESSING THE IMPACT AND LIMITATIONS OF THE AOIP
Despite its lack of a strategic dimension, the AOIP has been deemed successful in securing buy-ins from ASEAN’s external partners, mainly owing to its mild and apolitical nature, and for focusing on cooperation rather than rivalry.[9] The document’s neutrality (which differs from most Indo-Pacific strategies) makes it possible for most countries to accept the AOIP’s values and cooperation.
The overwhelming support from ASEAN’s dialogue and external partners, including China (a target of various Indo-Pacific strategies) has led to an increasing recognition of the AOIP’s benefits by more ASEAN countries. Currently, seven dialogue partners, namely India, Japan, the US, Australia, China, the Republic of Korea (ROK) and New Zealand have issued standalone statements with ASEAN regarding AOIP cooperation. While Canada and the EU have not issued separate statements, they have incorporated similar language in joint leaders’ statements with ASEAN. This has therefore enabled ASEAN to be a norm-setter and to play a leading role in the Indo-Pacific.
Beyond dialogue partners, most other external partners of ASEAN have committed to various forms of concrete cooperation across AOIP’s priority areas, enhancing the prospects for sustained implementation and for more partners in the long run.
While the AOIP has increased ASEAN’s standing in the regional architecture through the support of external partners, its strategic impact in addressing or mitigating the negative consequences of major power strategic competition in the region remains in question.
Despite garnering support from ASEAN’s partners, the AOIP’s lack of a strategic thrust hampers its ability to effectively manage external threats, particularly those posed by China. The inclusive nature of the AOIP makes it challenging for ASEAN to be viewed as a “like-minded” partner by countries that have a vested interest in the Indo-Pacific, such as the US, Japan, Australia and India (QUAD members), as well as countries such as the ROK, UK, Canada, France and Germany. This is especially so when ASEAN refuses to speak out against China for its aggression in regional flashpoints such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
Essentially, the AOIP’s limited strategic perspective and its absence of a hard power component constrain its efficacy in addressing conflicts. Apart from preventive diplomacy, it is unable to deter security threats or provide a strategic balance[10] in the region. This has prompted Indonesia’s former Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to claim that the AOIP was more of a defensive and programmatic approach than a bold one seeking to actively confront geopolitical challenges.[11]
The proliferation of non-ASEAN security groupings like the QUAD and AUKUS demonstrate that ASEAN-led initiatives such as the AOIP may not adequately meet the region’s security needs. Opinion polls, as reflected in surveys like the State of Southeast Asia Survey reports,[12] suggest that major powers’ security initiatives may weaken ASEAN’s centrality, despite their rhetorical support for the AOIP and ASEAN centrality.
Although there is increasing interest for ASEAN to take on a greater responsibility in managing major power rivalries, the region is far from being a provider of regional security.[13] Notwithstanding the AOIP being created to address geostrategic tensions, the defence sector, in particular, has been hesitant to adopt the Indo-Pacific concept. The ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) has only recently adopted a concept paper on the implementation of the AOIP from a defence perspective,[14] four years after the AOIP was published. Moreover, despite the expansive scope of maritime cooperation, the ADMM can only approve one AOIP activity each year and the activity should be one-off and informal in nature – signalling a lack of enthusiasm to mainstream the AOIP in the defence sector.
As such, under Indonesia’s leadership, the AOIP’s implementation has focused on softer cooperation and easier objectives like green infrastructure, digital developments, sustainable development, and the promotion of trade and investment.
This has led some observers to argue that the AOIP primarily symbolises the group’s aspirations rather than offering a concrete pathway to achieve specific outcomes.[15] Therefore, the Outlook may only be sufficient to kickstart and support more processes, dialogues, and lower-hanging cooperation rather than achieving tangible strategic outcomes, particularly those pertaining to security.
AOIP’S IMPLEMENTATION BEYOND INDONESIA’S CHAIRMANSHIP
The significant advancement of the AOIP’s implementation in 2023 was not surprising. Indonesia’s fervent push for extensive implementation was notably in line with President Joko Widodo’s priority of establishing the country as a Global Maritime Fulcrum. However, the enthusiasm for the AOIP’s continued progress beyond Indonesia’s Chairmanship remains uncertain.
During the early stages of formulating this Outlook, ASEAN countries were not unified in their perspectives on the narratives surrounding the Indo-Pacific or their level of support for the concept.[16] As such, despite the ultimate endorsement of the AOIP by all ASEAN countries, one of the significant challenges in its implementation is the varying degree of ownership among the member countries, along with their willingness and ability to allocate resources for its implementation.
Encouragingly, the AOIP is gradually becoming internalised within ASEAN as an instrument that brings tangible benefits to the grouping. As noted in the ASEAN Leaders’ Declaration on ASEAN As an Epicentrum of Growth[17] adopted in September 2023, ASEAN leaders have committed to further efforts in operationalising the AOIP by expediting AOIP projects and activities initiated by ASEAN or jointly with external partners, and to support the list of concrete projects identified at the inaugural ASEAN-Indo-Pacific Forum[18].
The Foreign Minister of Laos as the Chair of ASEAN in 2024 has given the reassurance that Laos will continue the implementation of ASEAN’s initiatives, including the AOIP.[19] Similar to Indonesia’s priorities in 2023, it is expected that Laos will strengthen the connectivity and sustainable development aspects of the AOIP by focusing on integrating and connecting economies, digital transformation, and climate change resilience.[20] Additionally, the Secretary-General of ASEAN Kao Kim Hourn has expressed hope that Laos might consider convening the 2nd ASEAN-Indo-Pacific Forum this year, with a theme that is in line with Laos’ Chairmanship priorities.
Importantly, Indonesia’s efforts in pushing for the mainstreaming of the AOIP has resulted in some level of institutionalisation through the creation of processes such as the “List of Criteria on Mainstreaming the AOIP”. Systematic processes have been put in place to identify, evaluate, track and monitor programmes, projects and activities under the AOIP undertaken by the ASEAN Secretariat. This form of tracking is expected to persist across Chairmanships, irrespective of the levels of motivation and aspiration that each Chair may have towards the Indo-Pacific and the Outlook. Overall, these developments suggest a growing recognition of the AOIP’s significance within ASEAN.
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES IN ADVANCING THE AOIP
In advancing the implementation of the AOIP, ASEAN may consider the following strategies. Firstly, a multi-year work plan encompassing a list of activities is crucial for maintaining a consistent trajectory of progress and ensuring a more impactful implementation. While external partners may propose recommendations for joint activities, ASEAN should also assess its own needs to prioritise specific areas of cooperation to align with frameworks such as the ASEAN Maritime Outlook (AMO),[21] which can offer a clearer direction for ASEAN’s maritime efforts in the Indo-Pacific.[22]
Secondly, to reinforce ASEAN centrality, the grouping should take the lead in proposing programmes and projects under the AOIP that will contribute to ASEAN community building and meet sectoral bodies’ priorities. ASEAN should identify the most appropriate partners to implement specific projects based on the strength of each country. ASEAN should also ensure synergies in the activities across ASEAN-led mechanisms. This approach will prevent overlaps in activities or workshops proposed by external partners for a more streamlined implementation.
Thirdly, the identification of AOIP initiatives should involve meaningful efforts rather than a mere re-packaging of existing cooperation under various Plans of Action. ASEAN should focus on innovative initiatives that can enhance AOIP’s strategic value across ASEAN-led mechanisms including the EAS, ADMM-Plus, and the ARF, prioritising quality over quantity. Quantity-focused approaches may lead to competition among dialogue partners and undermine the strategic essence of the AOIP. ASEAN should shift its focus from an obsession with numbers or statistics to activities that yield not only output but meaningful outcomes that can increase its members’ capabilities in a strategic competition.
Fourthly, although ASEAN has identified an extensive list of concrete projects, predominantly of a bilateral nature, as seen at the inaugural ASEAN-Indo-Pacific Forum, there is a crucial need to transform these isolated initiatives into cohesive ASEAN strategic objectives. The transformation can be achieved through the process of “connecting the connectivities”[23] or fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing among member states to produce innovative projects. Moving forward, a concerted effort should be made to ensure that AOIP projects or activities deliver benefits to as many ASEAN member states as possible, thereby solidifying their status as true “ASEAN” initiatives.
Lastly, there is a pressing need to establish a dedicated fund to implement AOIP activities. This will allow ASEAN to rely more on internal funding for its neutrality and centrality, and to assert more control over its priorities. While cooperation with external partners should persist, having an independent funding mechanism will let ASEAN determine the nature and execution of projects. Furthermore, this will ease the burden of the current and future Chairs in organising larger-scale events such as the ASEAN-Indo-Pacific Forum, and provide more incentives for them to host more such activities.
CONCLUSION
The AOIP has experienced significant success during the Indonesia Chairmanship. However, achieving consistent and impactful implementation of the AOIP across successive Chairmanships is imperative to solidify the Outlook as a strategic document that can bolster ASEAN’s central role. The analysis above highlights crucial factors for ensuring AOIP’s success, emphasising the importance of ASEAN’s leadership, developing a multi-year work plan, ensuring commitment to quality-focused approaches, transforming bilateral activities into regional projects, and establishing a dedicated fund. These will not only foster a sustained momentum in advancing the AOIP but also ensure its strategic relevance.
The analysis also underscores that relying solely on the AOIP may prove inadequate in addressing the rising strategic competition and the multitudes of initiatives led by major powers. However, leveraging ASEAN-led mechanisms, particularly the EAS (the region’s premier leaders-led forum) in the implementation of the AOIP, has the potential to position ASEAN as a pivotal “bridge-builder”. Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres has emphasised ASEAN’s crucial role in ‘building bridges of understanding’ and advancing multilateral solutions.[24] This approach empowers ASEAN to facilitate extensive dialogue among regional powers and foster interactions between countries like China and the US. Furthermore, it allows ASEAN to actively contribute to shaping guiding principles and norms, advocating for multilateralism, and working towards a more inclusive regional architecture.
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the original pdf document.
| ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735 Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /support/get-involved-with-iseas/ | ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed. Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission. © Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article. | Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong Editorial Committee: Terence Chong, Cassey Lee, Norshahril Saat, and Hoang Thi Ha Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s). |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• After more than a decade of deliberations, ASEAN leaders agreed on 11 November 2022 in principle to admit Timor-Leste as the eleventh member of the regional organization and to grant Timor-Leste observer status to attend all ASEAN meetings. Timor-Leste has demonstrated positive developmental progress, and fact-finding missions across the three ASEAN Community pillars have returned generally optimistic results.
• However, an assessment of Timor-Leste’s ability to fulfil its commitments and obligations reveals that the country will need to close the gap with the ten existing members on matters such as the ratification and implementation of legally binding agreements and derivative work plans. Creating enforcement mechanisms and finding ways to implement commitments at the local level will be important.
• Timor-Leste has put in place institutional structures and implementing agencies for advancing cooperation with ASEAN. It is also moving towards harmonizing its laws with ASEAN instruments. However, its capacity remains in question due to a lack of substantive knowledge and technical expertise among government officials, as well as inadequate infrastructure, logistics and facilities for hosting ASEAN meetings.
• Strengthening human capital will be a top priority for Timor-Leste. This includes not only enhancing its personnel’s knowledge and technical expertise on ASEAN processes and procedures but also skills such as English language proficiency and negotiation. Coordinated capacity-building assistance from ASEAN and dialogue partners will be important. These efforts must also be met with economic diversification and growth of its nascent private sector.
• Apart from bridging gaps, ASEAN needs to grapple with its reservations that Timor-Leste’s economic limitations may slow down the realization of the ASEAN Economic Community. There are also concerns that Timor-Leste’s membership may entrench differences within the bloc, particularly with regard to geopolitical issues, and dilute the organization’s effectiveness or further complicate the consensus-based decision-making process.
Trends in Southeast Asia 2024/1, January 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Geopolitical tensions between the US and China have been rising, with international trade facing more frequent challenges in what has become a tit-for-tat retaliatory landscape. Moreover, economic security initiatives have become more strategic and sophisticated, and more players now find themselves caught in the crosswinds of the strategic battleground.
- The US-China trade spat has seen ASEAN emerging as a viable alternative to China as a manufacturing hub, especially for technology-related goods. ASEAN economies collectively account for around 30% of US Electrical and Electronics (E&E) imports, notably on par with China, in 2022.
- Major economies have stepped up their engagement with ASEAN economies this year through the G2G channel and at a business level through the relocation of operations out of China into Thailand and Vietnam as part of a China+1 diversification strategy. China’s strict zero-COVID policies may have also catalysed the search for viable alternative production bases.
- ASEAN economies should proactively maintain their favourable position amid the global supply chain recalibration. Possible strategies could include: 1) Active engagement with key trade partners, 2) Domestic policies that provide a stable and predictable business environment, 3) Productive capacity upgrading policies, 4) Leveraging on multilateralism and 5) Strengthening the public-private-academic nexus.
* Kristina Fong Siew Leng is Lead Researcher (Economic Affairs) of the ASEAN Studies Centre. The author wishes to thank Jayant Menon, Senior Fellow of the Regional Economic Studies Programme, Sharon Seah, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre and Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme, and Joanne Lin, Lead Researcher and Co-coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre for their valuable comments and suggestions.
ISEAS Perspective 2023/76, 26 September 2023
A MORE SOPHISTICATED GEOPOLITICAL BATTLEFIELD
As geopolitical tensions between the US and China continue to rise, middle powers and small countries alike remain inadvertently caught in the crosswinds and become part of the strategic battleground. Whilst the Trump presidency (2017-21) was dominated by a barrage of retaliatory tariff increases between the two economic majors, the approach to international trade policy has since become more sophisticated, taking on elements of investment policy. One such approach has countries building up capacity onshore and attracting new investments in key strategic areas in the technology supply chain, exemplified by the US CHIPS Act of 2022[1] and the European Chips Act[2] enacted in September 2023. Some non-tariff barrier approaches are more direct and are laced with a security angle, such as China’s export restrictions on key rare metals (gallium and germanium, and related compounds)[3] (effective 1 August 2023), the US’ export caps on Chinese technology giant, Huawei[4] and more recently, the Netherlands’ additional restrictions on the export of ASML Holding’s chipmaking machinery to China.[5] This back and forth is set to continue with new measures and announcements of counter-policy measures making the headlines more frequently as it becomes increasingly a race for technological dominance as much as to address economic security concerns. That said, official dialogue between the US and China on trade and investment matters, including the establishment of a working group, convey some positive signals that having a ceiling to, if not a de-escalation in, trade tensions would be the preference of both sides.[6]
ASEAN RESILIENCY AMID GEOPOLITICAL UNCERTAINTIES
Although small in its constituent parts, the ASEAN region has grown in importance as an integral node in global value chains, as both a manufacturing hub and a significant player in the technology supply chain network. The region has effectively emerged as a viable alternative to well-established supply chains, diverting some of the global manufacturing concentration away from China. To assess the extent of the trade pattern shifts catalysed by the onset of the Trump, tariff-driven trade war, and ASEAN’s standing in the global ecosystem, we take into consideration trade data from the 2016-2022 period, covering the period before the Trump trade war, through the pandemic and into the present day.
Figure 1. Import pattern shifts for the US and China (2016-2022)
Source: UNCTAD and author’s analysis
From the initial analysis of both the US’ and China’s import patterns for this period, we observe a notable shift in imports away from one another and subsequent positive spillovers to the ASEAN region, as shown in Figure 1. For the US, the share of overall imports from China fell to 17% in 2022 from 21% in 2016, while the share of China’s imports from the US fell more marginally to 7% in 2022 from 9% in 2016. ASEAN’s share of imports correspondingly grew to 11% for the US (2016: 7%) and 15% for China (2016: 12%). Notably, there are significant dynamics exhibited by the changing patterns in the Electrical and Electronics components (E&E) imports. For the US, the significant shift away from China as a key backward linkage in this sector has resulted in import shares falling to 30% in 2022 (2016: 42%), while the shift to ASEAN in tandem has resulted in import shares totaling 29% in 2022 (2016: 20%). For context, ASEAN-sourced imports for E&E products make up almost a third of US imports of these components compared to a fifth before the Trump trade tensions started. This puts ASEAN on par with China in terms of import shares for the US in this respect. That said, some of this change could have also resulted from Chinese MNCs adding capacity to ASEAN locations for their own de-risking strategies on account of rising tariff rates imposed by the US.
Comparatively, China’s import share trends over this period are more stable, with shifts in imports from ASEAN for the main categories observed more muted in comparison. Import shares for overall products stood at 15% (2016: 12.4%) and 19% for E&E components as at 2022 (2016: 18%), reinforcing the central importance of ASEAN in the trade landscape. Amid the ongoing US-China trade rivalry, ASEAN’s relationship with China has remained intact, while its relationship with the US has strengthened. However, it should be noted that despite the growing ties with the US, ASEAN’s overall trade with China stood at USD 730.1 billion in 2022, 1.7 times that with the US which had a corresponding value of USD 422.5 billion. Moreover, China constitutes 19.1% of ASEAN’s total trade, whilst the US makes up only 11.0%.
A BROAD ROLE FOR ASEAN IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ASEAN’s changing trade patterns with major economies reflects its growing importance, as seen in Table 1. Although European economies did not see substantial changes to imports from ASEAN over the period, Japan experienced an increase in ASEAN import share, especially for that of E&E products to 16.9% in 2022 from 13.7% in 2016. This too can be a shift away from reliance on China; Japan’s import shares from there fell from a significant 52.3% in 2016 to 42.2% in 2022 in E&E components. Not only has ASEAN grown in importance as an upstream producer for major economies, it has also markedly grown as an export destination for economies such as China and Japan (Table 1). All in all, the ASEAN region is greatly intertwined in the global supply chain, with its importance growing as both a viable backward and forward linkage. That said, it illustrates the importance and provides growing impetus for all stakeholders in the global value chain to prioritise the relationships between developed economies and China with ASEAN, and vice versa.
Table 1. Major economies and their trade dynamics with ASEAN
Source: UNCTAD and author’s analysis
ASEAN’S COMPETITIVENESS IN KEY AREAS OF MERCHANDISE TRADE
As Table 2 on Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCAs)[7] shows, ASEAN is an evident choice for supply chain recalibration to ‘de-risk and diversify’. Illustrated by the RCA values of more than 1, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand have maintained their productive competitiveness in semiconductors and related electronics over this period, while Vietnam has established its standing in this regard driven by the additional capacity built up in this sector since the onset of the trade spat. Given the high level of sophistication and specialisation along the technology value chain, most of the trade diversification trends at the start of the US-China trade tensions could have initially been centred around labour-intensive and lower-tech activities.[8] However, the tide could be shifting as even very niche producers such as TSMC, a global leader in semiconductor foundries, is seeing the need to diversify from its home base of Taiwan. This may provide more high-tech opportunities for those ASEAN countries that have capabilities to move up the value chain, such as Singapore.[9] Apart from these products, resource-endowed ASEAN countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia also find themselves competitive in the supply of integral energy-related exports such as natural gas.
Table 2. Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCAs) of ASEAN countries in selected products
Source: UNCTAD (SITC Product code classifications); Note: SITC Product code of 776: Cathode valves and tubes include that of semiconductors and integrated circuits.
THE ASEAN REGION IN FOCUS FOR MAJOR TRADE PARTNERS
The region holds strategic importance with respect to backward and forward linkages and has become increasingly significant in the technology value chain, especially as a China+1 diversification strategy. As a positive spillover, the added focus on the ASEAN region as a major global trade player has spurred greater industrial capacity building in select sectors; this has led to sectoral specialisation and enhanced economic development through human capital and technological upgrading. Thus, from the perspective of ASEAN and its trade partners, it is of mutual benefit to continue active engagement and remain open to trade growth. This stance has already taken root as perceptions of ASEAN as a leader in championing global free trade amongst respondents surveyed in the ISEAS State of Southeast Asia 2023 has risen from 15.5% in 2022 to 23.5% in 2023.
To ensure economic security, major powers that are wary of China have stepped up their engagement with ASEAN, for example through a slew of face-to-face high-profile roadshows this year. One notable example is US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen’s trip to Vietnam in July, after earlier trips to China and India. Objectives of the trip included enhancing cooperation between the countries in manufacturing, and promoting the G7’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) funding for renewable energy adoption, of which USD 15.5 billion were allocated to Vietnam. In the same trip, Treasury Secretary Yellen also promoted the USD 500 million available funding for international semiconductor factories under the CHIPS Act, to build up capabilities along the global technology supply chain. All these activities laid the groundwork for the official upgrade of US-Vietnam relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in September,[10] along with a spate of business deals and partnerships quickly revealed thereafter involving the participation of technology heavyweights such as Nvidia and Microsoft.[11]
MULTINATIONALS HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTEREST IN ASEAN
There have also been moves by multinational businesses, especially those in the E&E sector, to do more in ASEAN countries as part of their own strategies for self-preservation. Several major computer hardware manufacturers have announced concrete plans to diversify away from their reliance on China. In January, Dell announced its intention to completely shift away from “Made in China” chips by the end of 2024 and target at least 20% of its laptop production in Vietnam this year.[12] Subsequently, HP announced in July that they are working with suppliers to shift more production of consumer and commercial laptops to Thailand and Mexico this year, with preliminary intentions to move some of this capacity to Vietnam next year as well.[13] Apple has also diversified some of its MacBook production to Vietnam this year, marking the first time its laptops have been produced outside China.[14] Malaysia has also gained some sizeable wins with Infineon Technologies announcing that it will build the world’s largest 200-millimeter Silicon Carbide (SiC) power fab there,[15] as well as Tesla making known its intentions to set up a headquarters there later this year.
ASEAN HAS WELL-ESTABLISHED TRADE AND INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS
One of ASEAN’s strengths is that it already has some robust formal relationships with major economies individually and at bloc level. These established platforms for active engagement in trade and investment activities are beneficial to facilitate greater collaboration, and perhaps, more importantly, brings ASEAN to the fore with respect to the latest global developments. Some notable Free Trade Agreements include the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (an ASEAN+6 trade deal, that includes China), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (which includes four ASEAN countries – Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand + 8 including Australia and Japan), ASEAN+1 FTAs with China, South Korea and India. Of note, the ASEAN-China FTA is currently undergoing an upgrade and the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA) is being reviewed. Other major bilateral FTAs include Singapore’s bilateral FTAs with the European Union (EU), United Kingdom (UK), and the United States, Vietnam’s bilateral FTAs with the EU and UK, and Thailand’s bilateral FTAs with China, Australia and Japan, with some notable ongoing negotiations between the EU and US and a number of ASEAN economies. Most recently, the EU announced the start of a scoping exercise to relaunch negotiations for the EU-Philippines FTA when the European Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen visited the country in late July.[16]
STRENGTHENING ECONOMIC LEVERAGE WHILE REMAINING NEUTRAL
In tandem with the more focused interest that major economies’ have taken in ASEAN economies, ASEAN economies should take proactive steps to maintain their favourable position amid the global supply chain recalibration. Some possible policy strategies are:
- Pursuing active engagement with key trade partners – In line with how major economies and companies have been stepping up efforts to engage with ASEAN, it is important for ASEAN economies to show the same level of commitment and, likewise, pursue opportunities and build up relationships with key trade and investment partners. Although, ASEAN is undoubtedly in a favourable position in terms of manufacturing capabilities and competitive aspects such as production costs, ASEAN economies are not the only ones on the radar of major economies. India has frequently emerged as a key market for E&E components relocation. Complementing high-level G2G engagements this year, companies such as Tesla and Apple are seeking to build up a viable technology hub in India. Thus, there is a risk that potential complacency may lead to a loss in some of the strategic leverage ASEAN currently holds. Active engagement will also help ASEAN economies de-risk their own supply chains as well.
- Promoting domestic policies that provide a stable and predictable business environment Amid global risks and uncertainties, companies prefer operating in a business environment characterised by economic policy certainty and political stability. Thus, placing emphasis on this objective will help regional economies rank higher in terms of a relocation preference. In the latest IMD World Competitiveness Ranking 2023, five ASEAN economies feature in its assessment of 64 economies. Singapore ranks highest in terms of government and business efficiency, while the Philippines ranks the lowest. To note, Malaysia’s rankings in both these measures appear to be lower than what would be expected of an upper-middle income economy.
Table 3. IMD World Competitiveness Rankings 2023
Source: IMD World Competitiveness Center
- Prioritising productive capacity upgrading policies – Being at the forefront of technological development lends itself well to how the prospects of an economy are perceived. Targeting capital investments in new technologies and having a workforce sufficiently skilled to reap the benefits of these technologies, should be high on the priority list of ASEAN governments. Regional economies must tread carefully so as not to unleash beggar-thy-neighbour policy implications akin to the impacts some developed economies are now facing by virtue of the competitive subsidy regimes they have adopted.[17] Relocation attraction should not be based on costs alone and hence, having a robust foundation of capital and skills can help limit adverse spillover effects, as there is more to the value proposition than attractive subsidies.
- Leveraging on multilateralism – Strengthening respective domestic productive capacities and building up industrial specialisation may be worthwhile objectives for economies to pursue independently, but there are certain benefits to acting together as a bloc, especially in terms of collective interests and for smaller ASEAN member states to benefit in terms of visibility and credibility. Moreover, collaborating as a bloc on aspects such as digital upgrading and harmonisation of standards would also strengthen the region as an attractive business ecosystem. In terms of active participation in high-profile and multilateral FTAs, it would serve to maintain the region’s relevance in the global supply chain and avoid the risk of ‘being left out’ of key global economic developments. Moreover, deep FTAs, such as the ones initiated by the EU and the US, can also set the stage for economic reforms in investment protection and labour rights, which could also make these economies more attractive from an investor perspective, if implemented in a non-distortive way for the host country. In preparation for accession to high-profile FTAs such as RCEP and CPTPP, ASEAN countries involved are required to amend relevant domestic laws in order to comply with the terms of the deal. These FTAs also provide an opportunity for CLMV countries to transition to open regionalism through the multilateralisation of preferential terms of the trade accords they are party to.[18] As a start, the RCEP requires these countries to extend preferential tariffs to all RCEP members, above and beyond ASEAN. In this context, the Margin of Preference (MOP)[19] would ideally be reduced to zero and hence, again, help to increase the attractiveness of ASEAN as a trading bloc ecosystem. As of 2018, the import-weighted MOP for Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam stood at 10%[20] which is more than double that for other ASEAN economies.
- Strengthening the public-private-academic nexus – In any major industrial development, it is vital that a clear and constant line of communication between the business sector and the government exists. The benefits of this are particularly important for new areas of business and innovation. Businesses would gain a better pulse on new technological developments in their industry and perhaps even be market leaders in the area. This would be useful for policy prescriptions, especially to capacity build for the future. Moreover, businesses would also be able to provide relevant and valuable feedback on the right kind of policy mix for their industry to sustainably grow. The further integration of academic output and knowledge-sharing to this nexus, would enhance the innovation capabilities and competitiveness of economies in the region.
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the original pdf document.
| ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735 Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /support/get-involved-with-iseas/ | ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed. Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission. © Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article. | Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong Editorial Committee: Terence Chong, Cassey Lee, Norshahril Saat, and Hoang Thi Ha Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s). |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- COVID-19 and the rise of the digital economy are excellent opportunities for ASEAN to accelerate its regional integration push.
- However, the ASEAN Digital Integration Index (ADII) shows that the area of digital skills and talent is ASEAN’s worst-performing indicator of the six digital integration benchmarks used to measure digital integration.
- ASEAN needs to enhance the digital skills and mobility of talents in the region.
- It can do this by leveraging the regional tech companies’ abilities to scale up the integration of its workforce to a regional-wide digital economy ecosystem, and adding digital workers to the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) to facilitate their movement in the region. These two measures are critical in ensuring that the demand for digital talents is met.
- ASEAN also needs to facilitate intra-ASEAN student mobility and digital skill advancement early through educational platforms such as the ASEAN University Network and other student mobility programmes.
* Melinda Martinus is Lead Researcher at the ASEAN Studies Centre, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. Farah Nadine Seth was formerly Research Officer at the ASEAN Studies Centre, ISEAS –Yusof Ishak Institute.
ISEAS Perspective 2023/48, 21 June 2023
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 has intractably accelerated the digital economy in Southeast Asia. The interaction between the health crisis and the digital economy in the region has raised consumer dependencies on digital services such as telemedicine, video conferencing platforms, financial services, and e-commerce. According to Google, Temasek, and Bain’s annual E-Conomy SEA 2022 Report, ASEAN’s digital economy is on course to reach US$600 billion-US$1 trillion by 2030, with sustained long-term projections.[1]
The growth of the region’s digital economy will help ASEAN accelerate its regional integration. One excellent example is integration in the financial sector through digital payment systems. Currently, the central banks of five Southeast Asian countries—Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore—have linked up their digital payment systems, improving inclusivity, cross-border economic activities and efficiency.[2]
Recognising the potential for both growth and regional integration, ASEAN has been boosting its digital integration activities. For instance, the ASEAN Digital Integration Framework and Action Plan (DIFAP) serves as the overall blueprint for ASEAN’s digital integration efforts.[3] The ASEAN Agreement on Electronic Commerce, which entered into force in 2019, attempts to harmonise principles and rules to promote e-commerce in the region and to strengthen the capacity to implement them.[4] The COVID-19 crisis has also inspired ASEAN to double down on its agenda to accelerate digital transformation. The Bandar Seri Begawan Roadmap: An ASEAN Digital Transformation Agenda to Accelerate ASEAN’s Economic Recovery and Digital Economy Integration outlines a multi-year roadmap to deepen ASEAN digital integration and connectivity against the backdrop of COVID-19.[5]
The digital economy will undoubtedly become an enabling factor in ASEAN’s growth journey. However, it creates an unprecedented demand for digital workers equipped with in-demand technical skills. Singapore needs 1.2 million additional digital workers by 2025 – a 55 per cent increase from today’s levels – to remain competitive.[6] For Indonesia, an additional 600,000 digital talents annually are needed to service its digital transformation pipeline until 2030.[7] Meanwhile, a digital talent survey conducted by a Malaysian think tank, the Social and Economic Research Initiative (SERI), found that only 4.8 per cent of Malaysian private sector respondents feel that the existing labour market can fully meet their digital talent needs.[8]
The baseline study of the ASEAN Digital Integration Index (ADII),[9] which serves as a benchmark for ASEAN digital integration efforts, indicates that among its six digital integration components: ASEAN is currently performing the poorest in Digital Skills and Talent. This Perspective offers some analysis of the underlying causes of this dismal performance and identifies three opportunities to enhance digital skills.
ASEAN DIGITAL INTEGRATION: SKILL AND TALENT PILLAR REMAINS DISMAL
ASEAN has made efforts to monitor integration initiatives across the region through the ASEAN Digital Integration Index (ADII) which provides an evidence-based analysis of the state of implementation in priority areasof the ASEAN Digital Integration Framework (DIF)for member countries. The report categorises digital integration initiatives according to six pillars, namely (i) Digital Trade and Logistics; (ii) Data Protection and Cybersecurity; (iii) Digital Payments and Identities; (iv) Digital Skills and Talent; (v) Innovation and Entrepreneurship; and (vi) Institutional and Infrastructural Readiness. An overview of the ADII pillar scores for the region ranked by level of integration can be found below:
Table 1: ADII Pillar Scores
| ADII Pillars | Score (out of 100) | Rank |
| Institutional and Infrastructural Readiness | 62.85 | 1 |
| Data Protection and Cybersecurity | 62.81 | 2 |
| Digital Payments and Identities | 58.84 | 3 |
| Digital Trade and Logistics | 55.27 | 4 |
| Innovation and Entrepreneurship | 49.32 | 5 |
| Digital Skills and Talent | 48.21 | 6 |
Source: ADII
While all elements of digital integration are vital to regional integration efforts, the ADII report highlights the need to prioritise human capital development with regards to digital skills (and innovation), given that a digitally trained workforce would form the backbone for regional digitalisation. Moreover, knowledge-intensive sectors within the growing digitally-driven industry – such as ICT and e-commerce – not only require skilled labour to manage and continually innovate increasingly complex digital tools, but also entail ordinary consumers having the requisite digital skills to competently utilise and tap into digital platforms and technologies for their business needs and day-to-day activities.[10]
The urgency of developing a digital talent base is underscored by the fact that the ‘Digital Skills and Talents’ pillar fares the worst in the ADII assessment. Below is a breakdown of the indicators used to compute the scores of the Digital Skills and Talent pillar. Each indicator is scored against 20 with a total score of 100 for the entire pillar.
Chart 1: Breakdown of indicators for Digital Skills and Talent
Source: ADII
The report noted that the indicator for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates is low; its score of 5.82 is less than half of that for university graduates with business-relevant skillsets (12.67). However, the indicator for the overall population with digital skills fares best (13.11), with the report noting that the general population already exhibits adequate digital skills (e.g. basic computer skills and digital reading), likely self-taught through day-to-day activities and work requirements. Meanwhile, the proportion of employment in knowledge-intensive services is the lowest (4.48), and the level of multi-stakeholder collaboration in research and development is still unsatisfactory (12.13).
It is challenging to compare the performance of digital skills and talents highlighted by the ADII with other economies because of different methodological assessments. Be that as it may, the talent indicator in the World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2022 by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) can serve as a benchmark to compare ASEAN countries with other major economies in Asia and the Pacific (Table 2).[11]
Table 2 ASEAN Countries and Asia and the Pacific Economies’ Talent Ranking 2022
| Countries | Talent Ranking (63 global countries) ** |
| ASEAN Countries* | |
| Indonesia | 51 |
| Malaysia | 33 |
| Philippines | 54 |
| Singapore | 12 |
| Thailand | 45 |
| Asia and the Pacific Economies | |
| China | 40 |
| Hong Kong SAR | 14 |
| India | 52 |
| Japan | 41 |
| Republic of Korea | 38 |
| Taiwan (ROC) | 19 |
Source: The World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2022 by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD)
*Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam were not assessed in the ranking
** The talent ranking was assessed by the indicators of talent readiness, investment and development, and appeal to the global community.
According to the ranking, four ASEAN countries—Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines—appear in the bottom 50 per cent (out of 63 countries assessed). Singapore is the only regional country that ends up in the top 20 per cent of the list. Leaving Singapore aside, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines do not fare much worse than other developing economies such as China and India. Even Japan only fares marginally better than China. This indicates that ASEAN digital talents are still competitive enough to attract digital economy investments.
Developing digital skills is a common focus area for various ASEAN digital and connectivity initiatives.[12] The ADII report makes two key recommendations for boosting the digital talent base: (1) Prioritisation of the development of digital capabilities and formal employment opportunities to enhance digitalisation. Its proposals include channelling educational resources towards STEM courses and ensuring inclusive access to digital upskilling initiatives, and (2) Collaboration with the private sector to identify, develop and grow relevant digital skillsets.
MANAGING DIGITAL TALENTS AND SKILLS
To manage this challenge, there are at least three opportunities that can be exploited by ASEAN.
Leveraging the Growth of Regional Technology Companies
ASEAN can explore leveraging the rise of regional technology companies to integrate the workforce into digital platforms. Not only are these companies able to facilitate digital access for users and service providers, they also have the resources to provide skills training, thus accommodating new entrants into the digital workforce.
The three largest digital companies in the region – GoTo, Grab and SEA – valued at over US$10 billion,[13] have initiated a variety of digital enhancement skills for different purposes but with the ultimate aim of increasing the digitally-ready citizenry and integrating more people into the digital workforce and ecosystem. Their tech-oriented workplace requires individuals to have intermediate or work-related digital skills in critically assessing data and developing original digital content. Such skills include digital marketing, digital graphic design, and the increasingly important skills of data management and business analysis.
Grab is making inroads in improving basic digital skills, with “improving digital inclusion and digital literacy in Southeast Asia” as one of its key goals to be achieved by 2025 under their “GrabforGood” social impact programme.[14] Microsoft, in turn, embarked on a regional skills training and digital literacy partnership in 2019, providing Grab drivers and merchant-partners the opportunity to tap on a Microsoft Digital Literacy certification programme[15]via GrabAcademy, Grab’s online training platform. In 2021, over 780,000 partners benefitted from this scheme.[16]
Grab is also focused on improving digital literacy among the general public. In Singapore, it partnered with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to facilitate the running of more than a hundred digital clinics for senior citizens to foster greater digital literacy, with a targeted reach of 10,000 senior citizens within a year.[17] In Indonesia, the company supported the government’s digital literacy campaign by running two programmes for merchant-partners and the general public to foster both basic (through ‘Siberkreasi’) and intermediate digital skills (through the ‘Digital Talent Scholarship’). The programmes have helped upskill more than 12,000 MSMEs to date.[18]
Similarly, GoTo places considerable focus on talent development programmes such as its GO-Academy talent incubator[19] as well as its Generasi GIGIH programme[20] under its non-profit Yayasan Anak Bangsa Bisa. Through engineering bootcamps, tech competitions, and internship opportunities, GoTo focuses on harnessing young digital talent and integrating them into the larger Indonesian tech ecosystem. Not to be outdone, Grab and Microsoft partnered with selected regional universities to train students with in-demand technical skills through provision of Microsoft’s industry-recognised certification programme as well as applied learning opportunities through Grab-facilitated industry-relevant projects, competitions and internship stints.[21] Grab also runs other talent development programmes across the region such as the Grab Unicorn Apprentice programme in Vietnam, as well as the Grab Campus Apprenticeship programme in Indonesia.[22]
The regional tech companies’ roles in integrating people with digital platforms and scaling up initiatives for digital education have been quite promising. It demonstrates that the burden of providing formal and informal digital education can be shared by governments with private sector players who have the ability to mobilise at scale. However, policies must ensure the enabling conditions for the private sector to pursue workforce training sustainably. The recent mass layoffs of digital workers in the region have shown that the regional tech companies are still operating under capital spending, and thus global disruptions like rising interest rates amid high inflation easily necessitate them to restructure their workforce.[23]
Adding Digital Workers to the ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangements
The key to successful digital integration is to ensure an adequate supply of digital workers to grow a digital ecosystem in the region. At this time when ASEAN governments are shaping their digitalisation roadmaps, ensuring the mobility of digital workers is critical for meeting the demand and distribution of digital talents across the region.
One of the key features of ASEAN economic integration is the free movement of skilled workers under Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs), a set of policies that enable the qualifications of service suppliers recognised by authorities in their home country to be mutually recognised by other countries who are signatories to the MRA. ASEAN MRAs can arguably help to facilitate an increase in the number of skilled workers across ASEAN countries so that industries across the region can efficiently find the appropriate talents quickly.[24] Currently, the arrangements only recognise eight categories of highly skilled occupations such as engineers, nurses, architects, surveyors, dentists, medical practitioners, tourism professionals, and accountants but not digitally skilled talents. However, the implementation of ASEAN MRAs has been hampered by domestic rules and regulations on employment and licensing requirements.[25]
ASEAN countries like Singapore and Thailand have begun to pursue their own labour immigration policies. For instance, Singapore’s Overseas Network and Expertise Pass and Thailand’s Long Term Resident (LTR) visa for highly skilled professionals are intended to pull global and high-income top talents into specialised industries. To an extent, it is the slow implementation of ASEAN MRAs that pushes these countries to pursue their labour policies rather wait upon the ASEAN-led mechanism.
To be sure, the full operationalisation of the ASEAN MRAs is politically challenging. Employers often raise their demanded educational credentials and validity, due to the fact that their confidence in the region’s educational quality is low.[26] There are also considerable gaps among ASEAN countries in assuring standardised educational quality across the region. In addition, the ASEAN MRAs have faltered because the regional governments often raise new barriers in response to pressure from domestic lobbies to protect domestic employment and wages.
But it should be noted that the rise of the digital economy has created uniform demand for digital workforce with similar skillsets. Given the rising demand in digital workforce across the region, adding digital workers might look politically feasible in the future. Having digital workforce on the ASEAN MRAs will also facilitate cross-pollination of knowledge, information, and inventions across the region. The challenge remains on the effective operationalisation of the arrangements.
Facilitating Intra-ASEAN Students and Young Workforces’ Mobility Early
While it is true that ensuring the digital skills of the young workforce is vital for the region to fully tap into the digital economy, ensuring the mobility of young talents is relevant too. Giving them the opportunity to travel across the region for work-study practices, internships, apprenticeships, and traineeship will ensure that businesses and industries can absorb them quickly.
Currently, ASEAN countries’ workforce demographics vary greatly. Singapore, Brunei, Thailand, and Vietnam are starting to face an aging population. By 2050, more than 25 per cent of the population in those countries will be over 60 years old.[27] Meanwhile, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Indonesia are entering a period of demographic bonus where the number in productive age groups is currently greater than the number in non-productive age groups. Getting young members of the workforce to move easily across borders to fill labour gaps cannot but be beneficial.
ASEAN has an opportunity to revive its various educational programmes under its Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint which still lacks a strategic mandate to optimise greater mobility of people within the region. One such opportunity is through the ASEAN University Network (AUN) whose current scope is to provide a network of cooperation among universities and to harmonise higher-education outcomes in the region. The Network’s role can be strengthened and expanded by utilising ASEAN Dialogue Partners’ Assistance, the private sector, and ASEAN countries’ contribution to facilitate student internship and traineeship in emerging digital industries. Other initiatives under the ASEAN umbrella such as the ASEAN Foundation can serve as a platform for industries and young talents to explore digital industries and operations.
Exposing young talents to opportunities to work regionally at an early stage is key to build a stronger regional economy. No single ASEAN economy can efficiently rely on its domestic workforce to tap the digital economy maximally. There are double benefits to be gained if ASEAN can facilitate the mobility of the young workforce early in their career. First, ASEAN has an opportunity to harmonise human capital standards needed by the regional digital economy. Young members of the workforce should be exposed to regional job market requirements that can help them make a career jump in the future. Second, ASEAN countries can ensure their digital talent gaps are met and their young utilised efficiently across national borders.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 and the rise of the digital economy have provided an excellent opportunity for ASEAN to accelerate its regional integration push. The ecosystem of the digital economy can be sustained in the long run if the demand for digital skills and talent can be met. There are three key opportunities for ASEAN. First, ASEAN can collaborate with regional technology companies on digital education efforts to scale up the integration of the digital workforce regionally. Second, ASEAN must consider adding digital workers to the ASEAN MRAs to facilitate the mobility of professionals in the region and to make sure that its policies are operationalised. Third, ASEAN needs to facilitate intra-ASEAN student mobility and digital skill advancement early through educational platforms such as the AUN and other student mobility programmes.
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the original pdf document.
| ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735 Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /support/get-involved-with-iseas/ | ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed. Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission. © Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article. | Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong Editorial Committee: Terence Chong, Cassey Lee, Norshahril Saat, and Hoang Thi Ha Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s). |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- ASEAN regionalism is increasingly seen as being slow and ineffective, casting doubts on its leadership role in the region.
- Minilateral cooperation in ASEAN will allow a smaller group of like-minded ASEAN countries to work together in a targeted manner to deliver results where it matters.
- Such cooperation is not meant to replace multilateralism but rather to supplement what is not possible in the broader setting, and to promote its eventual expansion into greater regionalism when the time is ripe.
- Minilateral cooperation currently exists in ASEAN in many forms, such as: The Malacca Straits Patrol between Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand; the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area, and; the Laos-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project, among many others. This allows ASEAN countries to respond to opportunities and challenges in their geopolitical environment and to overcome weaknesses in existing ASEAN cooperation.
- ASEAN should look beyond existing minilateral cooperation to address in like manner more challenging issues such as the South China Sea.
*Joanne Lin is Co-coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, and Lead Researcher (Political-Security) at the Centre. Laura Lee is currently a Public Policy and Global Affairs undergraduate at Nanyang Technological University. She was an intern at the ASEAN Studies Centre from May to September 2022.
ISEAS Perspective 2023/16, 8 March 2023
INTRODUCTION
Minilateral groupings such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and the trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the US (AUKUS) in the Indo-Pacific region have called into question the effectiveness of ASEAN and the security benefits it offers. It has also cast doubts on ASEAN’s centrality, especially its ability to satisfy the strategic needs of major powers.[1]
Although multilateralism will ensure an equal voice across all member countries (regardless of size and power), multilateral organisations are increasingly finding themselves in a deadlock, unable to act or slow to act, resulting in sub-optimal results.[2] This is starkly exemplified in the UN’s failure to prevent the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war or to end it.
Similarly, ASEAN finds itself increasingly unable to overcome challenges, with differing national interests among member states leaving the grouping divided and increasingly unable to achieve consensus. Since the bloc’s expansion from six to ten members in the 1990s, the divide between maritime and the newer continental (Mekong) countries in Southeast Asia has also become obvious.
In the State of Southeast Asia 2023 Survey Report[3], the top concern about ASEAN among regional respondents (at 82.6%) is that “ASEAN is slow and ineffective, and thus cannot cope with fluid political and economic developments, becoming irrelevant in the new world order”.
This has prompted observers and scholars to call for a paradigm shift to overcome ASEAN’s bureaucratic processes and institutional hurdles, and to become a nimbler organisation that can quickly adapt to rapid geopolitical and economic developments.[4]
This article suggests that ASEAN’s ineffectiveness may be overcome by a constructive form of ‘ASEAN minilateral cooperation’ that allows like-minded ASEAN countries to work together through concrete activities towards shared priorities (especially strategic ones) in a targeted manner for maximal impact.[5] Such minilateral cooperation could focus on issues of common interest and should not be mistaken for minilateral decision-making, which goes against the principles of the ASEAN Charter.
This is aligned to the growing preference for minilateral cooperation among countries (including major powers and ASEAN members). Besides the QUAD and AUKUS, there has been an increasing number of trilateral collaborations and engagements such as the trilateral security dialogue between Australia, Japan and the US and the Australia, India and Indonesia (AII) trilateral. The Five-Power Defence Arrangement between Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the UK is an example of minilateral consultative defence cooperation; this was signed in 1971 to safeguard the external defence of Singapore and Malaysia,[6] and its functions later evolved to include non-conventional threats such as piracy and disaster relief.[7]
MINILATERAL DECISION-MAKING VERSUS MINILATERAL COOPERATION
Minilateralism is not entirely new to ASEAN. The regional organisation has a history of working in smaller groups. According to the ASEAN Charter Article 21, in the implementation of economic commitments, a formula for flexible participation, including the ASEAN Minus X formula, may be applied where there is a consensus to do so.”[8] It allows for the gradual, delayed participation of X number of state(s) in economic agreements, given the consensus of all member states (including the X states). This is to enable ASEAN to advance its cooperation and integration without being held back by members who are not ready.
However, misconceptions arise when the ASEAN-X formula is extended to decision-making process within ASEAN, as advocated by some scholars and practitioners. Often, this fails to recognise the high-degree of apprehension among several member states towards any shift away from the ASEAN fundamental principle of consultation and consensus, toward a majority-vote decision-making process.
For example, Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak has suggested an a la carte formula allowing willing members to take common positions without waiting for unanimity among all ten countries. His proposed “ASEAN 5+X” model will allow the five original members of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore to serve as a renewed core.[9] However, such a formula may go against ASEAN’s principle of equality (irrespective of the length of membership) and may deprive the newer members of the opportunity to lead ASEAN.
Similarly, in the case of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn, a UN independent expert, viewed the “X minus Y formula” as a healthy development, especially as the credibility of AICHR is likely to suffer if it sits still on issues that require a substantive response” such as the situation in Myanmar.[10]
While these are innovative suggestions to help ASEAN overcome its alleged tendency to be slow and ineffective, the fear that one’s national interest or position can be overridden by a majority-vote will not sit well with member states. The entrenched processes within ASEAN are unlikely to be open to overnight reform.
Minilateral cooperation as suggested here is not about decision-making in a small group but rather, about an interest group being formed to focus on issues that matter more to some countries than to others. Humanitarian mine actions for example would be more relevant to ASEAN countries impacted by landmines and explosive remnants of war such as Cambodia and Laos, than to others. As such, ASEAN should not view minilateral cooperation to be an activity carried out by an exclusive group of members, but as an initiative involving an initial group of members that are ahead in certain areas of cooperation, and that will expand over time to include other interested members.
Premised upon the non-exclusive nature of such minilateral cooperation, the ASEAN-X formula can be expanded beyond economic cooperation into the security domain (such as areas like terrorism and preventive diplomacy)[11] in order to make progress on key transnational challenges, as well as future areas of cooperation such as artificial intelligence and space technologies where some members may not yet be ready.
ASEAN minilateralism can also take the form of a group of ASEAN members playing a greater leadership role in areas of cooperation that are specifically of greater relevance to them, such as in the case of the South China Sea where only four members are direct claimant states.
EXISTING MINILATERAL COOPERATION IN ASEAN
Similar to minilateral cooperation among major and middle powers, ASEAN countries have tried to develop various security configurations of their own in order to advance their own interests and respond to the opportunities and challenges in their geopolitical environment.[12] This takes into consideration existing gaps in ASEAN cooperation.[13]
On the security front, the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Trilateral Security Cooperation is an example of minilateral cooperation within ASEAN. It boosts cooperation in defence and humanitarian assistance between these three countries which have lingering border management and war legacy-related issues that can occasionally flare up.[14]
Another is the Malacca Straits Patrol between Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, which was launched in 2004 to enhance security in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore through coordinated sea patrols and facilitate the sharing of information between ships and their naval operational centres.[15] Likewise, the Sulu Sea Trilateral patrols—a minilateral security collaboration between Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines,[16] was set up in 2017 to address transnational challenges in the Sulu Sea between the three countries. There have been talks to expand and broaden the partnership to other countries in Southeast Asia.[17]
Beyond the trilaterals and quadrilaterals, Our Eyes initiative—a platform for strategic information exchange to combat terrorism and violent extremism among six ASEAN countries, namely Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand—was launched in 2018.[18] The was later adopted as ASEAN Our Eyes initiative under the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) and serves as an example of a sub-regional minilateral initiative expanding into a full regional mechanism.
More recently, the first ASEAN Coast Guard Forum—initiated by Indonesia—took place last November to boost maritime security. Eight of the ten ASEAN countries, excepting for Myanmar and Cambodia, attended it;[19] the event was followed by the signing of the ASEAN Coast Guard Declaration[20] to promote safe and secure sea lanes in regional seas. What started as a proposal by the Indonesia Maritime Security Agency (Bakamla) to “present a coordinated approach” in matters relating to the South China Sea [21], generated a smaller grouping, made up particularly of those most directly involved, such as the claimant states in the case of the South China Sea, that could take the lead. A similar, but more extreme view was also expressed by Philippines’ Senator Maria Imelda Marcos when she proposed a code of conduct among claimants, instead of the 10-member ASEAN and China.[22]
Apart from security initiatives, ASEAN minilateralism in the economic sector such as the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA, launched in 1994) allows the four ASEAN members to boost growth in trade, investment and tourism through intra-regional shipping routes and air links. While boosting sub-regional economic growth, the initiative also contributes to greater ASEAN economic integration.
A new initiative for a regional QR code payment to be constructed between the central banks of five ASEAN members—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore, launched in November last year[23] is also a form of minilateral arrangement that can help advance ASEAN economic integration, starting with partners who are ready and willing to later expand to include others in the grouping.
Likewise, energy cooperation through the ASEAN Power Grid to promote regional power interconnection is currently in a “minilateral” phase.[24] At this point, the Laos-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project serves as ASEAN’s pilot in addressing technical, legal and financial issues of multilateral electricity trade.[25]
The ASEAN Power Grid was originally envisioned in the 1990s as a region-wide initiative to encourage collaboration on energy efficiency and renewable energy innovation. However, after 20 years, not much progress has been made due to differences in energy policies and commitment, as well as economic inequality among ASEAN member states.[26]
To go beyond this difficult situation, countries that are ready for broader cooperation in the energy sector could proceed first and let others to follow when ready. In this way, cross-border cooperation on bilateral terms may be expanded to a sub-regional level, and ultimately allow for the creation of an integrated multilateral ASEAN power grid system. Similarly, the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline could potentially be another model of how bilateral and minilateral cooperation within ASEAN that has the potential to be scaled up to regional level.
EXPLORING NEW MINILATERAL INITIATIVES IN ASEAN
Beyond existing minilateral cooperation in ASEAN, there is potential for ASEAN to expand such an approach in order to address more challenging issues. The South China Sea is an area of contention within ASEAN due to competing national interests and to deep differences between ASEAN countries and China. ASEAN and China have worked together for 20 years on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea,[27] but with no clear end in sight.
Claimant and non-claimant states within ASEAN may not share the same level of interest and priority with regard to the negotiations. Four out of the ten ASEAN members are claimant states, namely Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, while Indonesia has an overlapping claim with China in the Natuna Islands. Scholars have observed that non-claimant members have little or no interest in standing up against China.[28] They have also noted the possibility of an intra-ASEAN caucus (or an ASEAN South China Sea Forum) to coordinate more closely with each other on their respective national positions on the South China Sea issue and the Code of Conduct negotiations.[29] Such a caucus or forum may also be used for intra-ASEAN settlement of disputes. By settling disputes among themselves first, ASEAN claimants of the South China Sea may have a stronger stance in negotiating a Code of Conduct with China.[30] A consensus between the claimant states could serve as ASEAN’s negotiating position against China, resulting in greater bargaining power for ASEAN.
Indonesia and Vietnam set the stage for closer coordination by coming up with an agreement to demarcate their exclusive economic zones (EEZ) in December last year after 12 years of negotiation. The successful EEZ delimitation between Indonesia and Vietnam may also encourage the Philippines and Malaysia to follow suit.[31]
However, for such a minilateral caucus to work, a consensus should first be reached among all ASEAN countries to agree to leave certain issues and decision-making to a group of ASEAN members. In the case of the South China Sea, once claimant states have agreed on a common position, consensus should also be sought from non-claimant states, since the COC is to an agreement between all ten ASEAN countries and China (rather than between the claimant states alone).
Another potential area for minilateral cooperation is the ASEAN peacekeeping force. The initiative was proposed in 1994, 2003, and 2015 by Indonesia and Malaysia but failed to attain consensus among all ASEAN members. [32],[33] This is considering that eight ASEAN members (except Laos and Myanmar)[34] have contributed to the United Nations peacekeeping missions. The ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting has been cooperating closely on peacekeeping operations, including through the ASEAN Peacekeeping Centres Network (APCN).[35] However, a joint force under the banner of ASEAN seems to be a distant dream. For the strong proponents of this initiative, perhaps a good starting point could be an ASEAN-X peacekeeping force to which willing members may contribute under the banner of ASEAN, allowing other members to join when they are ready.
Other forms of minilateral cooperation to complement ASEAN’s work could be in enhanced cooperation on counter-terrorism and anti-radicalisation among high-risk countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore.
CONCLUSION
Evolving geopolitical developments necessitate an exploration of new approaches to cooperation in order for ASEAN to stay relevant and uphold its centrality. The opportunity cost is high if ASEAN fails to take concrete action in dealing with important regional issues such as the South China Sea. While the preservation of ASEAN unity is important, the regional bloc must balance the usefulness of moving together against the loss of credibility if it fails to act.
Minilateral cooperation within ASEAN will allow it to make greater progress and to better serve the diverse interests of member states. Such cooperation is not meant to replace multilateralism but to supplement what is not possible in the broader setting, while facilitating its eventual expansion into greater regionalism when the time is ripe.
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the original pdf document.
| ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735 Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /support/get-involved-with-iseas/ | ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed. Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission. © Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article. | Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong Editorial Committee: Terence Chong, Cassey Lee, Norshahril Saat, and Hoang Thi Ha Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s). |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- The military coup in Myanmar on 1 February 2021 created huge diplomatic repercussions, throwing into uncertainty the country’s international position and representation.
- The coup’s unconstitutional basis and the resistance to military rule in Myanmar also presented challenges for international and regional bodies to engage with stakeholders in Myanmar.
- The United Nations and ASEAN have approached these challenges on the basis of existing procedures and guidelines. Although the UN’s existing guidelines seem to favour democratic legitimacy, it prefers not to be perceived as taking sides in Myanmar’s representation.
- ASEAN, lacking similar guidelines regarding credentials and representation, has created its own precedents regarding the level of representation at key political meetings. Neither the UN nor ASEAN have accorded outright recognition to the State Administration Council (SAC) or the parallel National Unity Government (NUG), although individual member states have exercised unilateral initiatives to engage in dialogue with the NUG. Additionally, some members and dialogue partners of ASEAN have turned to existing treaty practices that allow arrangements for non-recognition disclaimers in concluding regional treaties and agreements involving Myanmar.
- Differing views and interests among member states at either UN or ASEAN tables also add to the continued ambiguity on engaging Myanmar. This de facto de jure divide in and on Myanmar seems likely to continue in 2023, with the SAC’s election plans likely to exacerbate tensions.
* Joanne Lin is Co-coordinator of the ASEAN Studies Centre at ISEAS, and Lead Researcher (Political-Security) at the Centre. Moe Thuzar is Acting Coordinator of the Myanmar Studies Programme at ISEAS, and was previously a lead researcher at the ASEAN Studies Centre. The authors thank Dr Marcus Brand of International-IDEA for insights added to this paper.
ISEAS Perspective 2022/118, 1 December 2022
INTRODUCTION
The coup mounted by Myanmar’s military on 1 February 2021 has thrown the country’s international representation into ambiguity and confusion. The State Administration Council (SAC) regime, headed by Commander-in-Chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, who also appointed himself head of a caretaker government on 1 August 2021, asserts that the SAC is the sole representative and voice of the country.
However, the SAC’s creation as an instrument of arbitral military rule and the legality of its assertions were unconstitutional. While the coup leaders physically prevented the imminent convening of the Hluttaw, Myanmar’s legislature, the parliament nevertheless proceeded to swear in its members and establish a Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH; Committee Representing the Union Parliament). Three days after the coup, about 70 lawmakers-elect from the incumbent National League for Democracy (NLD) proceeded to take their oaths of office, as an act of upholding the 2020 election results and their legislative commitments.[1] The CRPH eventually grew to 20 Members, with the support of 80 percent of the elected MPs, and it has been extended recognition in inter-parliamentary cooperation, including by the European Parliament and the International Parliamentary Union. Legal experts have highlighted the coup’s unconstitutionality,[2] particularly the military’s unproven and implausible claims of electoral fraud as a reason to justify declaring a state of emergency and deposing and detaining the internationally recognised leaders and senior officials, including President Win Myint, State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi, the Chairman of the Election Commission,[3] Chief Ministers and senior cabinet members of the National League for Democracy (NLD) government.
Since the coup, and particularly since the appointment in April 2021 of the National Unity Government (NUG),[4] which draws its legitimacy both from the elected CRPH and a wider group of appointed representatives, both the SAC and those opposing military rule have put considerable effort into gaining international recognition by asserting the extent of their domestic reach and control as well as in their respective external engagements.[5]
The physical control of government buildings and the state machinery gave the military an initial upper hand, although mass resignations, strikes, and protests by an estimated 400,000 civil servants[6] hampered the military’s efforts to exercise administrative power.
The issue of representation and recognition presents challenges internationally and regionally. Both the United Nations (UN) and ASEAN operate on the basis of what they refer to as “recognising states rather than governing entities”. While Myanmar’s status as a member state is not in doubt, recognising the competency of a representative acting on behalf of a state presents a challenge in the post-2021 coup scenario.[7]
For the time being, the UN Credentials Committee has agreed that the incumbent Myanmar ambassador to the UN, Kyaw Moe Tun, would continue to represent Myanmar, and has deferred further decision.[8] In October 2021, ASEAN made an unprecedented decision to limit the SAC’s attendance at the 38th and 39th ASEAN Summits to a “non-political representative”,[9] upholding this for ASEAN’s special summits with China in November 2021 and with the United States in May 2022, respectively. In February 2022, ASEAN further expanded the non-political representative application to foreign ministers’ meetings. The practice was extended to the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus on 23 November 2022.[10] However, for all practical purposes, ASEAN interacts with Myanmar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and embassies which are under SAC control.
At the same time, in February 2022, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) resumed hearings of the case brought against Myanmar by the Gambia regarding the Myanmar state’s responsibility for preventing genocide towards the Rohingya population, under the Genocide Convention.[11] The ICJ hearings proceeded with the SAC in the defendant’s seat.[12]
In August 2022, international civil society/rights organisations supporting the UNESCO World Education Summit, mistakenly addressed the SAC chief as head of government.[13] Even in ASEAN, other than the Summit and foreign ministers’ meetings, other sectoral and functional meetings and activities have continued with SAC representatives.
There is thus a level of ambiguity surrounding the accreditation and acceptance of Myanmar representatives to ASEAN and international meetings, and in dealings with the various regional and international instruments to which Myanmar is a party.
APPROACHES TO RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE ISSUE OF CREDENTIALS
As a member of the UN and ASEAN, Myanmar’s statehood is clear and undisputed. Myanmar meets the legal requirements of statehood under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.[14] What is of greater concern, however, and particularly for ASEAN, is the recognition of competent representatives acting on behalf of a State, especially when the SAC and the NUG are both asserting their right to Myanmar’s ASEAN seat.[15]
Under international law, the recognition of government (as opposed to states), is largely left to individual members’ discretion. Most states or international institutions often resort to the Estrada Doctrine[16] to avoid accusations of meddling with sovereignty when different parties contest authority in a country. This bears some resemblance to ASEAN’s non-interference principle, as it is based on the principles of non-intervention and self-determination. Even so, considering the Estrada Doctrine in the context of the February 2021 coup in Myanmar runs the risk of condoning unconstitutionality. ASEAN member states had recognised the NLD’s second landslide victory in 2020. The ASEAN Chair’s statement on 1 February 2021 also emphasised the importance of “adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms” and a “return to normalcy in accordance with the will and interests of the people of Myanmar”.[17]
The general preference to recognise states and not governments does not resolve the question of recognising governments, especially concerning the establishment of embassies, the accreditation of ambassadors, or the signing of agreements.[18]
Thus, when the recognition of a new government needs to be considered, three criteria are usually referred to, namely: (i) the entity’s effective control of the territory; (ii) its democratic legitimacy; and (iii) its adherence to international law.[19] Before 1990, UN Credentials Committees usually referred to the traditional criterion of effective territorial control for recognising a government.
Apart from these three criteria, states may also consider moral considerations, based on whether a government gained effective control legitimately or otherwise, preferences for values or systems such as democracy, or asserting control through violence and authoritarian means. Such considerations are important, as they help to ensure that the coup in Myanmar is not a fait accompli.[20] The UN’s credential practices post-1990 have also demonstrated the importance of these values, including factors such as human rights records.[21]
In the 21st century, democratic legitimacy has emerged as having a greater claim to recognition than the earlier characteristic of effective control. The UN chose to recognise democratic legitimacy in Cote d’Ivoire (2011) and Gambia (2017).[22]
States may sometimes also use the terms de facto or de jure when the authority in a country is contested. Governments with de jure status are considered legal and constituted. In contrast, a de facto government may be in control of the political/executive affairs of the state although not legally recognised or enjoying a legal mandate.[23]
In the case of Myanmar’s representation at the UN, the 76th UNGA Credentials Committee[24] has deferred its decision indefinitely, based on the understanding that the incumbent, Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun (appointed by the NLD government in 2019) retains Myanmar’s seat.[25] Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun states that he represents the NUG when participating in UN procedures and votes on UNGA resolutions. Inconsistent with the UN’s own precedents and requirements, this position has not been reflected in other UN bodies, such as the secondary seats in Geneva and Vienna, or Myanmar’s representation at ESCAP in Bangkok.
ASEAN does not possess a similar mechanism to examine the credentials of member states’ representatives. The established rules in ASEAN do not have any guidelines to deal with cases in which appointments or credentials are contested, let alone the competency of the government that issues them. As such, in light of the non-recognition of the SAC’s authority by some member states and dialogue partners, ASEAN has faced an unprecedented challenge of finding options for the conclusion (and entry into force) of ASEAN instruments and agreements.
In ASEAN, treaty practices[26] allow arrangements to consider the issue of non-recognition in concluding treaties. For example, states can issue a statement that their accession to a multilateral treaty does not imply or confer recognition to certain state(s). This practice allows ASEAN member states or dialogue partners that do not recognise the SAC as the government of Myanmar to introduce a statement or declaration as a non-recognition disclaimer. Admittedly, this disclaimer may have more to do with a country’s position rather than a legal effect on the document.
Several member states and some dialogue partners of ASEAN have taken this approach in ratifying the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement. Similarly, in consideration of external parties’ accessions to ASEAN’s foundational document, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), the ASEAN parties to the TAC now submit individual written consent to the depository, replacing the previous (pre-February 2021) established practice of physical signatures to indicate consent.
SAC AND NUG: THE LEGITIMACY QUESTION
Although the SAC considers itself the ruling entity, and has styled itself as a provisional government since August 2021, experts have highlighted the military’s deposing and detention of existing officeholders as unconstitutional.[27] The SAC had justified the military takeover under the 2008 Constitution, but that same document contains provisions that charges relating to impeachment can only be initiated by the Union Parliament. Furthermore, the President has to inform the Union Parliament of a decision to declare a state of emergency, which did not happen in February 2021.[28] Senior NLD leaders and party members were also detained without charges presented against them (lists of charges were only presented after detention). In this aspect, the military’s actions cannot be considered as actions of a de jure government.
Apart from the unconstitutional basis of the takeover, the use of lethal force, extra judicial killings, and using the legal system to carry out the first judicial executions in decades, add to the violations of international law (in addition to the earlier legal action brought by the Gambia against Myanmar over atrocities against the Rohingya in Rakhine State).[29]
The nationwide protests and coordinated civil disobedience movements across the country following the coup, the breakdown of SAC-controlled local administration in several parts of the country, and the escalation of a cycle of violence in response to the military’s harsh crackdowns (which include airstrikes), also point to the reality that the SAC is unable to fulfil the criterion of “effective control” of the country.[30]
However, the SAC regime seems to enjoy some measure of pragmatic acceptance by China and to a lesser extent India, and outright strong support by Russia.[31] ASEAN has come under scrutiny for engaging the SAC to negotiate the cessation of violence in the country and facilitating humanitarian assistance, even as ASEAN members seek to differentiate engagement and acceptance. As at May 2022, four ASEAN member states – Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, have not appointed/replaced their ambassadors to Myanmar. Thailand accepted the credentials of an SAC-appointed Myanmar ambassador to Thailand in June 2022.[32]
ASEAN’s negotiation of the Five-Point Consensus with Senior General Min Aung Hlaing in Jakarta in April 2021 at the ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting, working with the SAC-led Myanmar National Task Force to deliver humanitarian assistance,[33] accepting the SAC’s defence minister General Mya Tun Oo’s presence at the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting,[34] and the 2022 ASEAN Chair Cambodia’s approach to engaging the SAC could be construed as ‘normalisation’ of military rule in Myanmar.[35]
The NUG was formed out of a coalition of NLD law-makers, representatives of several ethnic nationalities, and members of civil society. Appointed in April 2021, it is part of a political roadmap outlined in the Federal Democracy Charter adopted by the CRPH—a body of lawmakers, largely from the NLD who had received the people’s mandate through the 2020 democratic election.[36]The NUG’s goal is to restore democratic rule and uphold the results of the 2020 election.[37] It also commits to a vision of an inclusive federal democracy.
The NUG seeks to: (i) gain formal recognition from the international community by collaborating with international governments and international organisations including the UN; (ii) work on ratification of international conventions and treaties that will protect the nation in line with international laws; (iii) collaborate with partner countries; and (iv) work through diplomatic approaches to bring effective sanctions of the international community against the council of the military junta.[38]
The NUG has spared no effort to establish its diplomatic presence despite its constraints. To date, there are NUG representatives in Australia, Czech Republic, South Korea, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, and Norway. However, NUG representatives do not have diplomatic accreditation.[39] Several countries have dialogues with the NUG but have not officially recognised it. In this vein, various NUG ministers have held meetings with lawmakers from Canada and Spain, as well as senior government representatives from the US, Germany and Sweden.[40]
The NUG has tried to justify its legitimacy, and capacity to govern, by stating its adherence and commitment to international norms. For example, in addition to its withdrawal (in February 2021) of objections on the case against Myanmar at the ICJ,[41] the NUG has accepted the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction and role in reviewing the crimes committed by the military against the Rohingya people since 2002, including the alleged genocide in 2017.[42]The NUG has also offered potential citizenship to the Rohingyas.
At the UN and at international fora, the NUG continues efforts to highlight the SAC’s atrocities and illegitimate claims and to prevent/deny SAC participation in these platforms, through Ambassador Kyaw Moe Tun’s statements and meetings with the UN officials and member state representatives. Despite the obvious challenges to gaining formal recognition from the international community, the NUG seems nevertheless to have gained an advantage from existing UNGA rules that stipulate “the incumbent ambassador keeps the seat if there is a credentialing dispute”.[43] However, this does not translate into the UN recognising the NUG. In the absence of a firm decision by the Credentials Committee, the UN does not want to be seen as taking sides on Myanmar.[44]
The NUG is also emphasising the ‘responsibility to protect’ as justification for its capacity to prove a responsible counterpart for dialogue towards a federal system in Myanmar.[45] In this endeavour, the NUG also recognises the importance of an ASEAN member state’s obligations. It has appointed an Ambassador to ASEAN,[46] who has been urging the regional bloc to uphold the principles enshrined in the ASEAN Charter and to at least recognise the duality of competing political forces in Myanmar.[47]
Notwithstanding the public meeting between Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah and NUG Foreign Minister Zin Mar Aung, on the sidelines of the ASEAN-US Special Summit in Washington DC in May 2022, the NUG is aware that attaining formal recognition from ASEAN will be extremely challenging.
Limited support for the NUG may stem from perceptions of its limited long-term strategies and structural maturity, as well as uncertainty over the extent to which the NUG can represent the diverse populations in Myanmar (and their aspirations).[48] Operationally, the NUG is also limited in its ability to deliver public and consular services (including for Myanmar citizens abroad), such as issuing identity cards, passports, or visas to foreign visitors.[49]
Furthermore, several ASEAN member states (especially those that share a border with Myanmar) remain disinterested in putting further pressure on Myanmar’s military government nor do they seem keen to improve human rights, fundamental freedoms, and democracy in Myanmar.
CONCLUSION
The self-appointed nature of the SAC has limited justification to be recognised as the legitimate government of Myanmar. The sustained nature of the resistance against military rule close to two years after the coup also shows that the SAC has not proven able to establish effective control over the country. Furthermore, sanctions targeted against SAC elites and associates by the US and EU, among others, show that it is the SAC, rather than the Myanmar government, whose actions are unacceptable. Similarly, ASEAN’s decision to invite only non-political representatives from Myanmar to ASEAN’s high-level meetings, and the non-recognition disclaimers used by several ASEAN members in regional legal instruments indicate a disinclination to accord the SAC recognition.
The NUG’s democratic legitimacy and its status as the entity broadly representing the forces for democracy in Myanmar, and its stated commitment to uphold international obligations and standards of human rights, are being increasingly viewed as important in considering credentials in international settings.[50] Even in the ASEAN setting, the argument that ASEAN has used in the past concerning the SAC, i.e. that engagement does not necessarily constitute conferring legitimacy, could also be applied to the actions of any member state seeking to engage with the NUG, as illustrated by Malaysia’s action and proposals. Additionally, the Five-Point Consensus’ provision that the Special Envoy of the ASEAN Chair meets with “all parties concerned” indicates that ASEAN does not necessarily need to seek further permission to carry out that mandate. The ASEAN Leaders have now given the special envoy of the ASEAN Chair more leeway to proceed accordingly.[51]
Although NUG may seem to be the more popular choice for the international community, the path ahead for its formal recognition remains uncertain. China and Russia’s veto power at the UN Security Council and differing preferences in ASEAN may continue to provide SAC with the expectation that it could still pursue recognition and legitimacy via its plans for an election in 2023 under the SAC’s five-point roadmap. Scepticism abounds on whether this planned election will be free and fair. Even so, seasoned Myanmar watchers are cautioning that the military will doggedly continue its election plans, most likely limiting polls to areas that it deems sufficient to make the vote “legitimate”.
Members of the international community that have clearly stated their rejection of the February 2021 coup will maintain their positions, while the SAC will continue to find ways to retain its participation in ASEAN and strengthen its ties with countries such as Russia. Finally, even with stricter measures by ASEAN related to the implementation of the Five-Point Consensus,[52] and a more favourable attitude towards unilateral engagements with the NUG, the NUG may still find itself still in need of exploring diplomatic tools and opportunities for wider recognition by the international community.
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the the pdf document here.
| ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735 Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /support/get-involved-with-iseas/ | ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed. Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission. © Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article. | Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong Editorial Committee: Terence Chong, Cassey Lee, Norshahril Saat, and Hoang Thi Ha Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s). |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- The Russia-Ukraine War complicated but did not derail the ASEAN, G20 and APEC summits in Southeast Asia.
- The host nations stood their ground and refused to heed calls from Western countries to exclude Russia. All three meetings were a qualified success thanks to skilful diplomacy.
- President Putin did not travel to Southeast Asia due to a series of humiliating military setbacks in Ukraine and to avoid being shunned by other leaders.
- The language of the final summit statements was highly critical of Russian aggression in Ukraine.
- The ASEAN Summit was a success for Ukraine as it acceded to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and strengthened relations with Cambodia.
* Ian Storey is Senior Fellow and co-editor of Contemporary Southeast Asia at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute
ISEAS Perspective 2022/117, 29 November 2022
INTRODUCTION
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has impacted the countries of Southeast Asia in many ways. The most important, and damaging, ones have been in economics. The rising price of energy, food and other commodities has lowered GDP growth forecasts and slowed the region’s economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Kremlin’s invasion has undermined the rules-based international order, further aggravated US-China tensions and inserted another wedge issue in ASEAN unity.[1] The conflict has forced regional states to reassess their defence and arms procurement policies, particularly those that have purchased military hardware from Russia.[2] Myanmar’s tightening ties with Russia have the potential to worsen the country’s civil war.
The conflict also complicated the preparations for, and hosting of, three major back-to-back international summits in Southeast Asia in November: the ASEAN Summits in Phnom Penh (11-13 November); the G20 in Bali (15-16 November); and the APEC Leaders’ Summit in Bangkok (18-19 November).
The three summits tested the ASEAN countries’ convening power and their ability to resist calls from outside the region to disinvite Russia. That none of the events were derailed, and final statements were issued, is a testament to the hosts’ diplomatic skills in navigating complex geopolitical tensions. However, the events also underscored their limited ability to influence the dynamics of the conflict.
For the combatants themselves, the meetings provided important opportunities to lobby participating countries and articulate their competing narratives. Ukraine was able to advance its agenda and interests in Southeast Asia, especially at the ASEAN meetings. However, for Russia, the summits highlighted the difficulties the invasion has created for Moscow’s diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific region, including in its relations with traditional partners.
THE RUN-UP TO THE SUMMITS
In the immediate aftermath of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the viability of the three summits was called into question. Some Western leaders declared that it could not be “business as usual” in multilateral forums which included Russia, and even raised the prospect of boycotting the meetings if Russian officials were invited.[3] As the first major in-person summits to be held in Asia since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand had a great deal at stake ensuring that the meetings took place without incident. More importantly, they felt that because there were many pressing global problems that required international cooperation to address, multilateral processes should not be held hostage to the Russia-Ukraine War.
Accordingly, on 4 May, the foreign ministries of the three countries issued an unprecedented joint press release. The statement emphasised the importance of maintaining ASEAN centrality through “constant engagement based on the principle of equal mutual respect and interest”, the important role the G20 played in facilitating a “strong and inclusive [economic] recovery for all” and the need for APEC to “accelerate regional economic integration to achieve shared prosperity”. The hosts declared they were “determined to work with all our partners and stakeholders to ensure a spirit of cooperation, as we in Southeast Asia continue to strengthen ASEAN centrality, credibility and stability in our regional and global endeavours”.[4] Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand stood their ground, arguing that it was neither in the interests of the region nor in their power to exclude certain countries. Invitations were thus issued to Russia by the three states. However, to assuage Western discomfort, Indonesia also extended an invitation to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attend the G20.
By mid-year, the threat of a boycott had receded, but the preparatory meetings highlighted how the war had impeded multilateral processes that involved Russia. In July, for instance, the G20 foreign ministers and G20 finance ministers held separate meetings in Bali. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attended the former in person, but walked out of the meeting following withering criticism of the invasion from his Western counterparts.[5] No joint communique was issued. Russia’s finance minister, Anton Silvanov, attended the latter meeting virtually, and although it too ended without a communique, Indonesia issued a chairman’s statement which noted that “many members” had condemned the war while noting one member believed sanctions had added to existing economic challenges.[6]
In the run-up to the three summits, much of the media coverage centred on which leaders would attend, especially Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the Kremlin had accepted the invitations to all three events, it remained non-committal on whether Putin would attend in person. It was widely assumed that Moscow would make a last-minute decision, and that his attendance would depend on how Russia’s armed forces were faring in Ukraine. By late October, it had become clear that Putin would not attend the summits but this was not confirmed until 7 November.[7] The Kremlin was always concerned about the poor optics of Putin being ostracized by other world leaders at the summits (as he had been at the G20 summit in Brisbane in 2014 a few months after Russia had annexed Crimea). Putin may also have weighed the personal risks to his own position while travelling overseas, though the prospects of a palace coup were always remote. But the deciding factor was a series of disastrous setbacks for Russia’s armed forces on the battlefield in the face of a successful Ukrainian counter-offensive. Most significantly, on 11 November, Russian occupation forces retreated from the strategic city of Kherson, the only major city captured by the Russians since the invasion and which in September the Kremlin had declared Russian territory “forever”.[8] As a result, Putin did not participate in any of the three summits, not even virtually. However, his absence may well have come as a relief to the hosts as it spared them the potential headache of having Putin in the same room as other leaders opposed to the war.
THE ASEAN SUMMITS
No matter how the war was going in Ukraine, it was always highly unlikely that Putin would have travelled to Phnom Penh. This was for two reasons.
The first is Putin’s lack of interest in the annual East Asia Summit (EAS). Since Russia joined in 2011, Putin has only attended once in person (in 2018 in Singapore) and twice virtually (in 2020 and 2021). Putin, it seems, is only interested in attending multilateral forums in which Russia can exert real influence, such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The presence of the US and China at EAS tends to overshadow Russia.
ASEAN has always viewed Putin’s participation in the EAS as a yardstick of how serious Russia is about its dialogue partnership with ASEAN, especially as the member states regard it as the key forum for leadership-led dialogue on the major issues facing the region. Putin’s absence will reinforce the belief among some ASEAN members that Moscow does not see relations with the bloc as a high priority.
The second reason is Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen’s vehement opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hun Sen has called it “an act of aggression”, and a “grave breach of the UN Charter” which threatens “the foundation of international order”.[9] Cambodia co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution condemning Russia’s invasion on 2 March.
Hun Sen has not only denounced Putin’s invasion but has also thrown his political support behind Ukraine. In a telephone call with President Zelenskyy on 1 November, Hun Sen condemned Russian aggression and supported the Ukrainian leader’s request to address the ASEAN meetings virtually. However, Zelenskyy was unable to do so because the ASEAN members could not reach a consensus.[10] Reports suggest that Myanmar, which has pursued closer relations with Russia since the February 2021 coup,[11] was the only ASEAN member to oppose Zelenskyy’s request.[12]
According to the chairman’s statement of the EAS issued by Cambodia, “most” of the EAS countries had condemned the “aggression against Ukraine”, called for an immediate end to the war and the non-use of nuclear weapons.[13] However, in a concession to Russia’s concerns about NATO expansion, including Ukraine’s possible membership of the alliance, it also noted the “view that the root cause of the situation in Ukraine should be addressed and the legitimate concerns of all countries must be taken into consideration”. But this phrase was of little consolation to Moscow.
Speaking at a press conference after the EAS, the head of the Russian delegation, Foreign Minister Lavrov, objected to the “absolutely unacceptable language regarding the situation in Ukraine”. Lavrov also accused the West and its allies of “militarising” the Indo-Pacific region with the aim of “containing” Russian and Chinese interests, and establishing “inclusive structures” that undermined ASEAN centrality, including the 2021 Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) technology-sharing agreement. Russia and China were, he argued, the only two major powers still supporting ASEAN centrality.[14]
For Ukraine, the ASEAN Summits were a diplomatic success. Although Zelenskyy was not able to address the meeting, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba attended as a guest of Cambodia. Most significantly for Ukraine, Kuleba signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) which enshrines the principles of friendly and peaceful relations among member states, including respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, and which is open to accession by countries outside the region (Ukraine became the 50th country to accede to the TAC). Ukraine had only applied to join the TAC in June, so its accession in November clearly indicated that ASEAN had fast-tracked the approval process. Although the ASEAN member states have taken different positions on Russia’s invasion, the bloc’s rapid approval of Ukraine’s application was a gesture of political support for Kyiv.
In a wide-ranging interview with a Cambodian media outlet, Kuleba called Ukraine’s accession to the TAC “a big political achievement”.[15] He thanked Cambodia for its support at the UNGA and for offering to send de-mining trainers to Ukraine. He announced that the two countries had agreed to establish embassies in each other’s countries. Kuleba also held bilateral meetings with his counterparts from Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. He urged the ASEAN countries to condemn Russia’s invasion, not only because it was an attack on Ukraine, but also the UN Charter and international law, adding “I’m confident that none of the ASEAN countries is interested in seeing any country following the pattern of behaviour of Russia here in Asia”.[16]
THE G20 SUMMIT
From February onwards, Indonesia had repeatedly argued that the G20 was an economic forum that should not be politicised by the war in Ukraine, and that the participants should focus their attention on post-pandemic economic recovery. However, among the three hosts, Indonesia went the furthest to try and bridge the gap between Western countries and Russia. In June, President Joko (Jokowi) Widodo himself travelled to Kyiv and Moscow to personally deliver invitations to Zelenskyy and Putin.[17] Yet Jakarta was under no illusions how difficult it would be to bridge the gap between the two opposing camps. Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi admitted that Indonesia’s presidency was “among the most difficult, or even the most difficult to date of all G20s because of the geopolitical issues, economy and others”.[18] Jokowi was clearly passionate about the necessity for the G20 to achieve concrete results. In his opening address he warned “If the war doesn’t end, it will be difficult for the world to move forward” and that the G20 “must be the catalyst for inclusive economic recovery”.[19]
President Zelenskyy addressed the G20 leaders by video, prompting Lavrov to walk out. Although a final statement was not expected, the G20 was able to issue a Leaders’ Declaration largely thanks to the behind-the-scenes diplomacy of Indonesia and India.[20] Moscow could not have been pleased with the language of the declaration. It referenced the UNGA resolution of 2 March which “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine” and added “Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy.” In reference to Russian threats to use nuclear weapons, the declaration stated “The use or threat to use nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” And in a push back to Jokowi’s plea not to politicise the summit, it recognised that while the G20 was not a forum to resolve security issues “we acknowledge that security issues can have significant consequences for the global economy”.[21] In response to the declaration, Lavrov accused the West of just that: politicising the G20.[22]
In addition to the harsh declaration, Russia failed to find support for its military operation in Ukraine from two of its closest partners, China and India. Although both countries have tried to maintain a neutral but sympathetic stance since February, it is becoming clearer that both countries are increasingly dissatisfied with Putin’s war. The White House reported that at a meeting between US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the two leaders had expressed their opposition to the use or threat to use nuclear weapons.[23] President Xi also warned against the “weaponisation” of food and energy (but expressed opposition to unilateral sanctions).[24] Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated his call for a “return to the path of ceasefire and diplomacy in Ukraine”.[25]
The Kremlin was to receive more bad news related to Ukraine as the summit got underway. On 14 November, Zelenskyy made a triumphal visit to the liberated city of Kherson. On the same day, the UNGA passed a resolution calling on Russia to pay reparations to Ukraine for damage to property and loss of life caused by its illegal invasion.[26] Three ASEAN states―Myanmar, the Philippines and Singapore―voted in support of the resolution while the other seven abstained. Three days later, a Dutch court sentenced in absentia two Russians and a Ukrainian for their role in the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 with a Russian-supplied missile in July 2014 with the loss of 298 passengers and crew, including 43 Malaysians.[27] The G20 meeting itself was interrupted by an emergency meeting of G7 and NATO leaders to discuss an accidental missile strike on Poland.[28]
Overall, however, despite the problems caused by the war, the G20 was a relative success for Indonesia as agreements were signed on a number of issues, including pandemic preparedness, energy transition and the financial sector.[29] It also provided a venue for a cordial meeting between Biden and Xi, which appears to have eased tensions between the two superpowers.
THE APEC SUMMIT
Of the three summits, Putin would most likely have attended APEC had he travelled to Southeast Asia. Russia was a founding member of APEC in 1988, and as president, Putin has attended most of the leaders’ summits. Putin’s participation in APEC summits underscores his transactional approach to the region. He regards it as an important venue to build trade and investment ties with the largest economies in the region, and promote investment in the infrastructure-poor Russian Far East. Putin was proud to host the APEC Leaders’ Summit in Vladivostok in 2012.
Thailand seemed eager to have Putin attend, especially after President Biden announced in late September that he would not participate and that Vice President Kamala Harris would go in his place. On 12 October, seemingly to avoid offending the Kremlin, Thailand abstained on the UNGA vote which called on member states not to recognise Russia’s illegal annexation of four territories in the Donbas.[30] In another concession to Russia, Thailand did not invite Zelenskyy to address the APEC leaders. Putin did not attend, however, and Russia was instead represented by the relatively unknown figure of Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov.
As with the G20 summit, the APEC leaders defied expectations and issued a joint statement. And in yet another setback for Moscow, the language in the declaration on the conflict in Ukraine was identical to the G20 statement.[31]
CONCLUSION
The Russia-Ukraine War bedevilled preparations for the three summits in Southeast Asia but did not derail them. The three hosts successfully rebuffed calls for Russia’s exclusion, and in the case of the G20, Indonesia was able to assuage Western criticism by inviting President Zelenskyy to address the meeting virtually. But for Russia, the meetings amounted to an embarrassing diplomatic failure. Putin was unable to attend any of the summits due to a series of humiliating military setbacks in Ukraine and the prospect of being marginalised by other world leaders. All three of the summit statements contained language highly critical of Russian aggression. Even China and India issued thinly veiled criticism of the Kremlin’s invasion. Ukraine did much better, especially at the ASEAN Summit where, thanks in large part to Cambodia’s support, it was able to raise its diplomatic profile with the bloc. Kyiv would also have been satisfied with the references to the conflict in the final statements of the three meetings.
Despite the relative success of the three summits, the ongoing conflict in Europe will continue to pose challenges for multilateral processes in the Indo-Pacific. As the chair of ASEAN in 2023, Indonesia will face many of the same problems it did during its presidency of the G20, and will need to continue to play the role of an honest broker between Russia and the West. India will take over the presidency of the G20 and has been touted as a possible mediator between the two sides. The US will host APEC in 2023 and the Leaders’ Summit will take place in San Francisco in November 2023. Given the fraught relationship between the US and Russia, President Putin will thus miss another APEC meeting.
ENDNOTES
For endnotes, please refer to the the pdf document here.
| ISEAS Perspective is published electronically by: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace Singapore 119614 Main Tel: (65) 6778 0955 Main Fax: (65) 6778 1735 Get Involved with ISEAS. Please click here: /support/get-involved-with-iseas/ | ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute accepts no responsibility for facts presented and views expressed. Responsibility rests exclusively with the individual author or authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission. © Copyright is held by the author or authors of each article. | Editorial Chairman: Choi Shing Kwok Editorial Advisor: Tan Chin Tiong Editorial Committee: Terence Chong, Cassey Lee, Norshahril Saat, and Hoang Thi Ha Managing Editor: Ooi Kee Beng Editors: William Choong, Lee Poh Onn, Lee Sue-Ann, and Ng Kah Meng Comments are welcome and may be sent to the author(s). |