The obscurity of ASEAN facing the South China Sea issue after the victory of the Philippines against China in the tribunal ruling showed the fragmented ASEAN. Various views criticized potential to rearrange ASEAN regional integration ended nil after the result of ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Vientiane, Laos. The meeting ended without a joint agreement by ASEAN member countries on the issue of the South China Sea. This situation indicates a declination of political relations between ASEAN countries within the framework of regional cooperation.

After the victory according to the result issued by the arbitral tribunal ruling, the Philippines energies a new approach for ASEAN to encourage the unification of ASEAN on the issue of the South China Sea during the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Laos. The initiative was presented by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines as a step getting the international support towards ASEAN unity. The meeting was controversially reported that Cambodia and Laos refuse consensus in facing the South China Sea.

In fact, when referring to the release of a joint communique of the 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, all countries agreed to establish a network of communication between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to maritime emergencies in the South China Sea. Nevertheless, the strategic measures agreed upon has not shown the existence of a single perspective in dealing with China in the South China Sea. Two of the failure to agree on a joint communiqué in Phnom Penh and Kuala Lumpur should be seen as the culmination of the change of position of ASEAN on South China Sea.

Thus, the question would be how should the ASEAN member countries facing the South China Sea issue?

ASEAN needs to establish a new constructive approach on the sea and its significance for regional integration. Sea is not only to be treated as a material element that can be exploited, but also as a political space in which the action of appropriation can be performed. Reflecting on how the Chinese build a discourse on the importance of the South China Sea is not only to meet the substantive national interest, but also as a traditional element that must be protected.

In the context of Southeast Asia, Jennifer Gaynor argues that the political instrumentalization over sea space had already happened in Southeast Asia. It was firstly brought by the Javanese who are creating the concept of ‘Nusantara’ dividing them with outside party. However, this concept developed to serve ranging purposes from nation-building, national security, and territorial demarcation (Gaynor, 2007). Since the mid-twentieth century, the term Nusantara has become the synonym for tanah air. This period demonstrated how Majapahit empire used this term making appropriation against the Dutch who claimed to restore the glorious of “Indianized” states of Java’s pre-Islamic past (Gaynor, 2007). By giving such ‘spatial ideology’ is to serve the purpose of Javanese making exclusive space against other nations outside of Java Island. In the aftermath, the concept of Nusantara denotes a national space in 1940s. The contemporary Indonesian illustrated Nusantara as a group of islands located between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean or between the Asian mainland and Australia. For the last reason, in 1957, the Indonesia government reinvented the concept of Nusantara in order to prevent the regional rebellions, thus issuing a statement of national unity called the Djuanda Declaration. The additional purpose is that this declaration also includes all of the waters between Indonesia’s islands within a single connected body: manifesting the abstract geographical signifier.

Referring the context above, the ASEAN member countries should begin to consider sea as a political space that is significant to be maintained through the process of appropriation. Instead of just dwelling on the substantive level, ASEAN members need to realize the importance of the ideological claims of the sea as a political space.

Dedi Dinarto is a research assistant at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Source: Xinhua

By Habibah H. Hermanadi, Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

At the end of the 2016 ASEAN regional summit all member states are looking forward to the joint declaration which will define ASEAN’s current stance as one unity, this one voice decision making process was seen as a way to assure unanimity within the forum. Once again the issue of South China Sea was brought into the table and causing internal schism. After Beijing rejected tribunal’s ruling in South China Sea earlier this month on 12th of July, the decision clearly stated that the permanent Court of Arbitration found that China had no basis for its expansive claims to territorial waters around the Philippines. Internal fragmentation within the meeting was not subtle as Cambodia publicly endorses China with their claim and China directly showed its gratitude towards Cambodia for taking charge of impartiality. The opposition shown by Cambodia was rather predictable considering what Prime Minister Hun Sen’s statement last year where he emphasized the importance of exclusive meeting only among the countries who are directly affected by the issues. In Vientiane, not until the 25th of July the draft statement to be issued by the foreign ministers under the clause of South China Sea was left blank, eventually a consensus was reached with all parties agreeing to refer back to UNCLOS code of conduct.

The utterance given by the arbitration tribunal supposedly helps to resolve disputes; the result is upholding the law and clarifies the stance of the parties. Regardless how Beijing had vowed to ignore the legally binding ruling, the decision by the tribunal became the principal assurance not only for the Philippines but also Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam where if the claim was invalid for the Philippines it is equally invalid to other states and the rest of the international community.

The current chair of ASEAN, Laos, was expected to steer the negotiation in order to draw a equitable result for all of the state members. As the current chair Laos’ involvement and intervention were paramount in preventing another failure from getting into consensual joint statement, presumably a compromised stance is what the forum aimed for yet the current result shown that the declaration merely touch the surface of the conflict. To negotiate and stand against China was considered to be a delicate issue and could be detrimental for Laos’ domestic needs considering that People’s Republic of China is still Laos‘crucial economic partners. By the end of the summit, the joint declaration some considered as fruitful is causing doubts because it is perceived as bland and inconclusive. There are still high hopes upon the current Prime Minister of Laos, Thongloun Sisoulith as his internationalist perspective shapes the current Laos foreign policy architecture. In line with Laos’ theme of “Turning Vision Into Reality for a Dynamic ASEAN Community.” this summit was the key for all the partaking actors to actually come up with tangible outcomes, a ‘reality’ deemed and visualized by Laos as the chair of ASEAN. Nevertheless, the pressure was rather high for Laos as it sources from both ASEAN’s side and China. Laos should be able to make the best out of its current leadership position yet at the same time anticipate further fragmentation coming out of this year’s summit.

Naturally, this summit was the reflection of where has ASEAN brought itself into, whether or not its progress up until 2016 had fulfilled what the region envisioned and what will they do next. The region itself must be able to discuss sensitive issues which are occurring within the region yet at the same time strengthen the cooperation and examine the ongoing integration process. Inevitably external influences are flooding ASEAN’s decision making process, despite of the status quo it is important to stay as one or else ASEAN will be leaving up rooms for disintegration. Not to repeat the 2012 debacle which caused seeds of discord ASEAN must be able to step up their diplomatic strategy, acknowledging what this region capable of and upping their ante with stronger bargaining position. As the summit continues that desirable tangible conclusion must be able to represent a sense of common ground among ASEAN state members.