Asean needs "flexible engagement"

In a concerted effort to overcome opposition from Asean member countries, the Foreign Ministry has redefined the concept of “flexible engagement” which will be officially presented as a non-paper when the Asean foreign ministers meet in Manila.

Several Asean members have expressed reservations after Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan urged in his proposal last month that they should be more open with each other and have frank discussions on domestic issues which have implications on other members and the group’s destiny. In effect, he called for a review of the Asean way of doing things.

Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos and Burma believe that member countries should not tamper with the principle of non-interference. In other words, they view the Thai initiative as a non-starter. The Philippines, which is host to the meeting, is the only country which has given strong endorsement to Surin’s proposal, and said it will be one of the major subjects on the agenda to be discussed. The other Asean countries are lying low adopting a wait-and-see attitude.

Given this, the Saranrom Palace has further watered down its proposal to ensure certain success. After all, Thailand cannot back down. In fact, the plan is about Thailand’s determination to implement a humane and principled diplomacy, and to enhance and expand Asean’s reputation and its international leverage.

Ahead of the Asean meeting, there have been thick accusations flying around the region that Thailand is carrying a Western agenda, and worse, that it is trying to echo the US’ foreign policy objectives. Another absurd idea is that Bangkok is trying to divide the grouping it helped found.

Indeed, it would be strange to have Bangkok acting on behalf of any Western country for Thailand has escaped Western colonisation and remained independent throughout its modern history. The Thai government has no anti-Western historical baggage. It, however, carries with it universal values emanating from various parts of the world.

It is not surprising that Bangkok feels quite at ease and has no qualms in changing its proposal to get everyone on board. It is a big challenge knowing full well the prevailing divergent viewpoints and scepticism among Asean colleagues.

Discussions with Saranrom officials revealed some key components in the flexible engagement approach, which are all in compliance and consistent with the 1976 Asean Treaty of Amity and Cooperation signed by the Asean leaders in Bali.

First and foremost is the continued commitment to the non-interference principle as the main instrument in conducting relations within Asean and the international community.

In addition, the approach also entails the effort to create an Asean community, as envisaged in the Asean Vision 2020, which will reflect unity in diversity because of the diverse economic, political and cultural background of the member countries.

Apart from these declared principles and vision, Asean members have responsibilities and rights in engagement that will contribute to the grouping’s common goals.

Although Asean has never been involved in the settlement of bilateral issues in its 31-year history, the Thai government believes that pro-active engagement could help managing bilateral differences or improving bilateral relations in the long run.

It is hoped that these objectives could be attained without sacrificing one’s identity, beliefs, norms and values.

To move along this path, the Thai proposal argues that the commitment to the non-interference principle cannot and should not be “absolute”. It must be subjected to reality tests. Above all, it must be flexible.

In the past one year, the situation in the region has changed a great deal and hence has made it more difficult to divide what are domestic affairs on the one hand, and external or transnational issues on the other.

As witnessed in the region, many domestic affairs have obvious transnational dimensions, adversely affecting neighbouring countries as well as the region, and its relations with others. Haze, financial crisis, transmigration, and terrorism are some of these problems.

As such, the affected countries should be able to speak out in a constructive manner, and this should not be construed as “interference” in fellow members’ domestic affairs.

Even with the current softer touch, flexible engagement is still a very sensitive issue for the Asean leaders because they seldom talk openly, even in closed-door sessions.