From sports shirt to business suit diplomacy

In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, this refers to the 10 member states, viz: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Of these, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand began their participation in the same year in 1967; one in the mid-80s; the rest in the mid to late ‘90s. Thus, five foreign ministers, considered the founders, signed on 8 August 1967 the “ASEAN Declaration” (aka the Bangkok Declaration) for what was to be the most successful inter-governmental organization in the developing world today.

It was conceived to foster regional “cooperation in the economic, social, cultural, technical, educational, and other fields,” and to promote “regional peace and stability” through an abiding respect for justice, the rule of law, and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Their governments were, however, largely authoritarian regimes besieged by the threat of communism. Over the years, ASEAN entered into two formal and legally binding instruments, viz: the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.

Interestingly, the then foreign minister of the Philippines, Narciso Ramos, was the father of the late President Fidel Ramos. More interestingly, the informal meeting took four days at the beach resort in Bang Saen, southeast of Bangkok, where they negotiated over that simple-worded, two-page document containing five articles of aims and purposes. They described it as “sports shirt diplomacy.”

Strange how today the whole affair has been referred to as the “ASEAN paradox,” haunting the vision of Southeast Asia’s integration. As a mental note, the combined population of ASEAN is 677.6 million, making it the third most populous region of the world.

As part of the continent of 48 countries, Asia has approximately 4.8-billion people, accounting for 60 percent of the global population. By this sheer fact alone, all roads should lead to Asia in terms of vibrant economic cooperation and integration, which many believe should have logically reduced security conflicts toward advancing peace and stability.

Ironically, the supposedly three anchors of free trade, capital and people operate as counterintuitive to economic integration, interdependence, resilience, connectivity and food security. As it stands today, political and security tensions (aka flashpoints) are the forks on the road poised against these economic efforts, this despite the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area 3.0 and upgraded ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement having just been concluded.

Scholars rightly observed the shifting great power dynamics evolving as created precisely by the United States-China trade war that caused tariff and trade imbalances and tensions over the South China Sea. Even the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct, toward a mutually agreed upon code, is faced with differing positions or conflicted interests.

Whatever the contemporary geo-economic architecture of this ASEAN paradox is today as it became one of the “most suitable environments for interregional dialogue, new mechanisms for confidence building, achievement of peace and regional security,” the fact remains that besides economic cooperation, the 1967 security concerns were high on the agenda of the founding fathers. It could not be dismissed as less of a “security project” and more of integration or cooperation, as it must be both, for developing economies much like their Western counterparts.

Neither can it be dismissed as less of a “diplomacy project” than it now must be. For as long as there are known and perceivable alternative pathways toward a peaceful and stable future for the region, all stakeholders must play their respective roles.

China’s “nine-dash-line” claim versus the overlapping exclusive economic zones of several Southeast Asian countries may seem insurmountable at the moment amid its increasing military buildup and “grey zone tactics.”

The eventual forging of a Code of Conduct between China and the ASEAN countries to establish clear rules and norms for maritime behavior while a big leap of faith could be a step in the direction of regional peace. The principal stakeholders know where all the “pressure points” are.