THE countries of South-East Asia share, in varying degrees, worries about Chinas rising political and military might. Most, partly for that reason, welcome American involvement in the regions security. So it is strange that whenever meetings of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) bring all these countries together, the ASEAN countries routinely squabble with the Americans. This years ASEAN meetings, at the end of July, broke new ground in both setting and content. They were held in a resort hotel near Kuala Lumpur whose internal decor owes more to Las Vegas than to Asia. It is set in a theme park containing a pyramid, a medieval castle, a sphinx with the face of a lion and a swimming-pool boasting the worlds biggest man-made surfing waves. Despite such jolly surroundings, the participants managed to widen the range of their disagreements, discovering new ones: the role of an American currency speculator (see article) and whether or not to revise the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Both rows were started by Malaysias prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, just back from two months holiday in the West with his anti-western batteries apparently recharged. He said the UN declaration, which was issued in 1948, “was formulated by superpowers which did not understand the needs of poor countries”. It was a new line of attack in an old battle with the West over its perceived emphasis on civil and political liberties, at the expense of economic and social rights. The opposing teams then lined up in the usual formation: the Asian countries on one side, and the West on the other, led by Americas self-declared “relentless” opposition to any tampering with One Asian objection to the UN declaration is that it provides a legal basis for western criticism of how Asian governments treat their citizens. So it is also odd that the annual meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum, held last weekend, was for the second year running preoccupied with the internal politics of some of its members. The ARF brings together the nine ASEAN countries, their regional neighbours and the big powers. It was intended to ease tension over such potential flashpoints as the South China Sea. Instead, this year it was preoccupied with the aftermath of a coup in Cambodia and the continuance of military rule in Myanmar. As in 1996, Ohn Gyaw, Myanmars foreign minister, was asked why his government had been so slow in moving towards the promised return to civilian rule. But this year, unlike 1996, he was given a rough ride, with several harsh interventions, notably from the American secretary of state, Madeleine Albright. Nobody sprang to his defence, and Mr Ohn Gyaw must have been wondering whether the juntas diplomatic triumph in securing ASEAN membership on July 23rd was worth having if it meant having to soak up such abuse. The ARF “commended” ASEANs policy of “constructive engagement” with Myanmar, although some, such as America and the European Union, had criticised ASEAN for allowing it membership. ASEAN diplomats regarded this as a victory. The westerners claimed they had made progress in persuading ASEAN to take responsibility for changing the behaviour of a members government. But as one Asian official put it, the point of admitting Myanmar was not to change it; it was to keep it out of Chinas sphere of influence, with the potential that could cause for trouble with its other big neighbour, India. The decision was “politically incorrect, but strategically correct.” For the Americans, however, political correctness matters, and the appearance of a joint approach is superficial. So too, perhaps, on the issue which dominated the ASEAN meetings: Cambodia, which would have joined the group this year but for the recent coup that appears to have ended the countrys experiment with democracy. The United States has been vocal in its criticism of the coup leader, Hun Sen. China, meanwhile, has cultivated good relations with both Hun Sen and the man he ousted, Prince Norodom Ranariddh. ASEAN is split between those who would like to admit Cambodia now and accept the status quo, and those who want a semblance of constitutional democracy restored. Everybody agreed that for now ASEAN should be allowed to try to find a settlement, which left aside the question of what such a settlement might look like. Anything imaginable is unlikely to meet American demands. Some Asian diplomats were somewhat taken aback by Mrs Albrights forthright style. (Not to mention her Madonna impersonation at the closing dinner. But even Mr Ohn Gyaw proved he is more than a human sponge; he can also sing and dance.) Many, however, prefered her active—if combative—participation to the starchy detachment of her predecessor, Warren Christopher. When the ARF was formed in 1994, it was discreetly advertised as a way of engaging China in a regional security discussion. It is beginning to look more like a way of engaging the United States.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 00:24:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015