Opinion | Australia’s offer to fund Asean security must be met with extreme caution

by


At the Melbourne summit, the Philippines, which has increasingly been clashing with China over their South China Sea claims, called for a stronger united stand in upholding the maritime rule of law. Malaysia is resisting the pressure to choose sides, however, with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim saying: “We do not have a problem with China.”

This view is not uncommon. For example, while 43 per cent believe conflict over Taiwan would destabilise the region, about a third also fear their countries being forced to take sides over it and feel their governments should take a neutral position, according to a survey last year of more than 1,300 people across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Over 45 per cent say their governments should oppose the use of force and reach for diplomacy instead.

Yet Australia continues to beat the war drums. Despite reaching for a thaw in economic ties with China, Australia has continued with its military posturing as a staunch US ally. If Asean follows the same approach Australia uses to deal with China, it may cause fracturing within the organisation and invite instability to the region.

05:22

Why the South China Sea dispute remains one of the region’s most pressing issues

Why the South China Sea dispute remains one of the region’s most pressing issues

Asean’s centrality has been key to its success as it seeks to resolve issues through mutual respect and non-interference – instead of applying a third country’s agenda, as Australia appears to be doing.
In recent years, Australia’s firm alignment with the United States, including as a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and Aukus alliance, has eroded its influence as a middle power in mitigating US-China tensions. Asean must resist any pressure on its neutrality if it wishes to continue to navigate regional issues independently, especially it hopes to increase its influence as a third force.

Asean is keenly aware of China’s immense power over the region. In the Asean population survey last year, nearly 60 per cent ranked China as the most influential economic power, compared with 10.5 per cent for the US, 4.2 per cent for the EU and just 2.7 per cent for Australia. China is also ranked first in political and strategic influence at 41.5 per cent, against 32 per cent for the US, 5 per cent for the EU and 3 per cent for Australia.

Last year, trade between China and Asean crossed US$911 billion, making them each other’s largest trading partner for a fourth consecutive year. As a bloc, Asean is unlikely to accept any economic cooperation that is conditional on acknowledging a military or geopolitical alignment amid US-China tensions.

Unlike the European Union, where all member states are representative democracies, Asean is made up of members with different political systems and often opposing ideologies – for instance, Brunei is an absolute monarchy, Singapore operates as a parliamentary democracy and Vietnam remains a one-party communist state. This makes Asean as a forum all the more remarkable.

Asean’s role cannot be summarised in binary terms; it cannot be forced to choose between China and the US. While US-China tensions in an increasingly multipolar world will be testing for individual Asean members, as a bloc, Asean has purposefully avoided creating any Nato-like institutions, firmly focusing on regional integration.

Its principles of mutual respect for independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in members’ internal affairs set it at a fundamental misalignment, ideologically and practically, with Australia’s security ambitions.

Australia ‘buying US hegemony’, ex-PM says as he slams Canberra’s China policy

Notably, the 1954 attempt to set up a military alliance called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation) – with the US, France, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan – failed spectacularly due to a lack of regional support.

Any security proposals or offers that Australia make will be received with wariness by Asean, with Australia’s seeming appetite for conflict seen as contrasting with Asean’s quest for peace in the region.
Australia’s Wong acknowledged at the Asean summit that “a major conflict in our region would be devastating to our communities and economies, as the terrible conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine have shown”.
Yet Australia has chosen to align itself with an America that persists in sending arms to Israel and has vetoed three UN Security Council resolutions for a Gaza ceasefire. An America that broke its promise to the Soviet Union to not extend Nato beyond Germany, which Russia has blamed for the Ukraine war.

Since the outbreak of the conflicts, the US has sent military aid worth US$14.3 billion to Israel and US$46.3 billion to Ukraine. This strongly suggests that peace has become an elusive concept due to the constant need to maintain global hegemony.

Australia’s latest offer to fund maritime security in Southeast Asia must be taken with great caution. What the region needs to secure peace and economic security is not more weapons but greater diplomacy.

Sameed Basha is a defence and political analyst with a master’s degree in international relations from Deakin University, Australia



Source link