At this juncture, Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Nam Hong is still communicating with his Asean colleagues to work out an alternative document that would contain the decisions of the failed joint communiqué. Somehow, mutual trust has been lost among them which urgent needs to be restored. Up until the weekend, they have only agreed on a list of key action oriented outcomes. The problem is, the list, which is till need a consensus still does not contain the controversial South China Sea dispute. Within diplomatic circuits in Asean, in the past weeks stories of how Hor Nam Hong snubbed the joint efforts by Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegala and Singaporean Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam at the last minute to save the draft were wide-spread.
Some Asean countries are very concerned that the South China Sea is overshadowing all other issues in Asean. If this disagreement continues it could spoil the upcoming series of summits scheduled in the third week of November as well as other future plans. Followed Indonesian President Bamban Susilo Yudhoyono and Singaporen Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s personal appeal to Prime Minister Hun Sen, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has recently written to him the other day with a strong message that Asean must not let the South China Sea dispute affect the building of Asean Community. Shamefully absence from all these endeavors is Thailand, the current coordinating country of Asean-China relations. However, Hun Sen responded unwittingly by referring to the letter dated 26 July dispatched by Hor Nam Hong to his colleagues about the chair’s effort to come up with an internal document that detailed the decisions made in the July meeting that failed to mention the dispute.
In case Asean is unable to come up with a new document in the next 48 hours, it could represent the darkest chapter of its history. Most importantly, it will reflect badly on the chair as Cambodia earlier pushed to highlight the grouping success in the past 45 years under its chair. The Phnom Penh Declaration was issued to that effect, which is now proved hallow.
There have been some informal discussions among officials and academics about the need to come up with the rule of procedure to guide a rotating chair in the future. At the moment, there are no clear rules concerning the Asean chair and its relations with other Asean organs and how the Asean Secretary General and its staff can be of assistance. The Asean foreign ministers took things for granted that they would be able to form a consensus on any issue, albeit disagreements, as in the past four decades. But the Phnom Penh incident changed all that.
More importantly, there must be a review of the position of Secretary General and the Secretariat for the benefit of coordination and cross-sectoral cooperation. Indeed, the disagreements among the Asean members over the maritime’s dispute have rendered urgency to the various recommendations submitted last year by Secretary General Dr. Surin Pitsuwan. In his special report concerning challenges facing the Asean and its secretariat to the Indonesia, which chaired Asean last year, he urged the Asean leaders to spell out clearly various roles and duties of each Asean organ and how they relate to each other.
After the Asean Charter came into effect in 2008, new organs were created to help the member countries to adhere to numerous Asean agreements and commitments. These were the Asean Coordinating Council, Asean Political-Security Council, Asean Economic Community Council, Asean Socio-Cultural Council, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, et al. At the same time, the position of Secretary General of Asean has been conferred as sthe Chief Administrative Officer of Asean with a ministerial rank. Surin was the first the Asean head with a ministerial rank before serving in the secretariat. That helps explain why Surin’s successor, Le Luong Minh from Vietnam, is a vice foreign minister.
Soon the Asean leaders will have to decide whether the Asean Charter need to be reviewed in order to improve the efficiency of decision making within the organization. Followed the charter’s coming into forces, member countries adopted a list of supplementary agreements, which continues until today. As long as these negotiations are not complete, the flow of operations at various levels within Asean will not be smooth. The lack of clarity on the roles and relationships among the various organs within Asean has caused serious structural problems in running day-to-day activities.
Here are some important questions that the Asean leaders must be addressed. Is the Secretary General of Asean the only Asean representative with ministerial rank? Given his/her wider access to summits and ministerial meetings including G20 and other global for a, is the Secretary General distinctive from other foreign ministers or sectorial ministers in Asean? If so, what short of value do the Asean governments attach to the unique perspective of Asean articulated by the Secretary General?
It is an open secret that Dr. Surin has tried consistently to raise these pertinent issues in the past two years to pave the way for a more efficient secretariat in the future. Indonesia and Thailand have been supportive of his endeavors. Deep down, other more conservative members want continued ambiguities to reign because whenever there are controversies, the Asean leaders or ministers will have the final say. Even though Asean is more integrated than before, there is no plan to allow the Asean chief to speak on their behalf. As such, new and existing programs and activities could come to a halt if their decisions are not put into official records such as the case in Phnom Penh.
As a rule based organization, Asean needs to review the charter and undertake further bold reform efforts. Brunei, the Asean chair next year, must seize the initiative now. Surin’s recommendations should also be given a full support as he knows firsthand about the organization’s potentials and pitfalls from the five-year experience. Without these reforms, Asean will be plagued with growing national interests depleting the common Asean interests which will further weakening Asean as a whole.