Jul 27, 2012
Last week, Thailand and Cambodia pulled back their troops from
the disputed border area around Preah Vihear, a ninth-century Hindu
temple.
The two countries have been locked in a stand-off around the temple for several years, amid several military confrontations. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which both Thailand and Cambodia are members, quickly celebrated the troop withdrawal.
ASEAN's delight was understandable. It has been keen to mediate in the conflict, partly to protect its own reputation. ASEAN's success in persuading Thailand and Cambodia to accept its role in mediating in their conflict came at a critical time.
Barely two weeks ago, the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Phnom Penh, the Cambodian capital, ended in disarray after the ministers could not agree on how to handle the South China Sea dispute.
The dispute - involving rival territorial claims by four ASEAN members (Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia) and China - has emerged as a serious challenge to ASEAN's credibility as a unified organisation.
In recent months, tensions in the disputed waters have risen, partly due to China's moves to assert its claims over almost all of the South China Sea, which is believed to hold very large deposits of oil and natural gas.
The failure of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers to issue a final communique in Phnom Penh - the first time in 45 years - was widely seen as a reflection of Beijing's influence on some ASEAN members, such as Cambodia.
Thus, the latest positive development in the Thai-Cambodian conflict could be a sign that the ASEAN spirit - many wondered whether it had vanished in Phnom Penh - should not be too hastily discounted.
Dispute Settlement
Credit must be given to ASEAN for being persistent in enforcing the existing dispute settlement mechanisms to resolve the long-running dispute.
But ASEAN's task is far from over - especially at this initial stage of the troop withdrawal. One question needs to be asked: Will ASEAN be able to sustain its mediating role and will its dispute settlement mechanisms be effectively utilised this time?
ASEAN has long been criticised for its inability to force its members to make use of the available regional dispute settlement mechanism to deal with bilateral conflicts, not only to find a peaceful solution to such conflicts, but also to reaffirm the members' respect for the organisation to which they belong.
There are at least four documents which indicate clearly how conflicts, among member countries, and between them and non-ASEAN states, can be tackled. These are the Bangkok Declaration, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the ASEAN Charter and the ASEAN Political Community Blueprint.
These documents spell out clearly that any parties to the dispute are able to request the ASEAN Chairman or its Secretary-General to provide good offices, conciliation or mediation. At the same time, however, they are not forced to involve ASEAN in the disputes either.
For example, in 1977, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, in staking his country's claim to Borneo, said: "As a contribution to the future of ASEAN, I wish to announce that the Philippines is taking definite steps to eliminate one of the burdens of ASEAN - the Philippines' claim to Sabah."
But, in reality, it was obvious that he or his successors never took those definite steps. He only cited ASEAN's value in minimising disputes his country had with other ASEAN members.
Seeking Lasting Solution
But ASEAN is not without experience when it comes to involving itself in regional disputes. Past instances included ASEAN's opposition to Vietnamese incursion into Cambodia at the end of 1978 and the occupation of that country for most of the 1980s; and ASEAN's leadership in the political settlement of the Cambodian conflict as well as ASEAN's dispute settlement mechanism operation in AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Agreement)-related disputes between Malaysia and Thailand, and between the Philippines and Singapore.
It is extremely important for ASEAN to champion its own dispute settlement mechanisms. This is not just because it will contribute towards building a solid ASEAN Political Community, which is expected to be established by 2015, but also because a peaceful region is imperative in ensuring ASEAN's long-lasting prosperity in an era of fierce global economic competition.
In the Thai-Cambodian case, this will be a great opportunity for the two governments to "talk to each other" and settle their differences. Both must seek a long term-solution, including how to actively involve ASEAN should a conflict arise in the future.
As for the South China Sea dispute, it is now time for all parties to manage their rival claims in a more systematic way. And ASEAN, with its available multilateral platforms, is well placed to offer them a channel to do so.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is Associate Professor at Kyoto University's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.
The two countries have been locked in a stand-off around the temple for several years, amid several military confrontations. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which both Thailand and Cambodia are members, quickly celebrated the troop withdrawal.
ASEAN's delight was understandable. It has been keen to mediate in the conflict, partly to protect its own reputation. ASEAN's success in persuading Thailand and Cambodia to accept its role in mediating in their conflict came at a critical time.
Barely two weeks ago, the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Phnom Penh, the Cambodian capital, ended in disarray after the ministers could not agree on how to handle the South China Sea dispute.
The dispute - involving rival territorial claims by four ASEAN members (Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia) and China - has emerged as a serious challenge to ASEAN's credibility as a unified organisation.
In recent months, tensions in the disputed waters have risen, partly due to China's moves to assert its claims over almost all of the South China Sea, which is believed to hold very large deposits of oil and natural gas.
The failure of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers to issue a final communique in Phnom Penh - the first time in 45 years - was widely seen as a reflection of Beijing's influence on some ASEAN members, such as Cambodia.
Thus, the latest positive development in the Thai-Cambodian conflict could be a sign that the ASEAN spirit - many wondered whether it had vanished in Phnom Penh - should not be too hastily discounted.
Dispute Settlement
Credit must be given to ASEAN for being persistent in enforcing the existing dispute settlement mechanisms to resolve the long-running dispute.
But ASEAN's task is far from over - especially at this initial stage of the troop withdrawal. One question needs to be asked: Will ASEAN be able to sustain its mediating role and will its dispute settlement mechanisms be effectively utilised this time?
ASEAN has long been criticised for its inability to force its members to make use of the available regional dispute settlement mechanism to deal with bilateral conflicts, not only to find a peaceful solution to such conflicts, but also to reaffirm the members' respect for the organisation to which they belong.
There are at least four documents which indicate clearly how conflicts, among member countries, and between them and non-ASEAN states, can be tackled. These are the Bangkok Declaration, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the ASEAN Charter and the ASEAN Political Community Blueprint.
These documents spell out clearly that any parties to the dispute are able to request the ASEAN Chairman or its Secretary-General to provide good offices, conciliation or mediation. At the same time, however, they are not forced to involve ASEAN in the disputes either.
For example, in 1977, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, in staking his country's claim to Borneo, said: "As a contribution to the future of ASEAN, I wish to announce that the Philippines is taking definite steps to eliminate one of the burdens of ASEAN - the Philippines' claim to Sabah."
But, in reality, it was obvious that he or his successors never took those definite steps. He only cited ASEAN's value in minimising disputes his country had with other ASEAN members.
Seeking Lasting Solution
But ASEAN is not without experience when it comes to involving itself in regional disputes. Past instances included ASEAN's opposition to Vietnamese incursion into Cambodia at the end of 1978 and the occupation of that country for most of the 1980s; and ASEAN's leadership in the political settlement of the Cambodian conflict as well as ASEAN's dispute settlement mechanism operation in AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Agreement)-related disputes between Malaysia and Thailand, and between the Philippines and Singapore.
It is extremely important for ASEAN to champion its own dispute settlement mechanisms. This is not just because it will contribute towards building a solid ASEAN Political Community, which is expected to be established by 2015, but also because a peaceful region is imperative in ensuring ASEAN's long-lasting prosperity in an era of fierce global economic competition.
In the Thai-Cambodian case, this will be a great opportunity for the two governments to "talk to each other" and settle their differences. Both must seek a long term-solution, including how to actively involve ASEAN should a conflict arise in the future.
As for the South China Sea dispute, it is now time for all parties to manage their rival claims in a more systematic way. And ASEAN, with its available multilateral platforms, is well placed to offer them a channel to do so.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is Associate Professor at Kyoto University's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.
1 comment:
Thailand need to stop bullying at poors cambodian, we need to live together like a good brother and sister...
Post a Comment