This week former
Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating repeated his proposal that Australia join
ASEAN. According to the Australian
Financial Review, “Australia ‘should become a
member of ASEAN’, a membership that would ‘help Australia and help ASEAN’.” Mr. Keating raised this idea previously in
2012.
The
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) provides thorough analysis of why
Australia would never formally request ASEAN membership, here
and here.
It also discusses the reasons in favor of Australian membership here
and here.
I’ll stick to a more
legalistic analysis. Article 6 of the
ASEAN Charter sets forth the criteria for membership as follows:
“(a) location in the
recognized geographical region of Southeast Asia;
(b) recognition by all
ASEAN Member States;
(c) agreement to be
bound and to abide by the Charter; and
(d) ability and willingness to carry out the
obligations of Membership.”
The second criterion is not
at issue, but the others are.
First, Australia is not part
of the “recognized geographical region of Southeast Asia.” Australia is considered to be its own
continent, or a part of Oceania. One of
the ASPI articles cited above brushes this aside as Australia is a neighbor of
ASEAN, like Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste, other potential ASEAN members. However, Timor-Leste is a recognized part of
Southeast Asia. Papua New Guinea is not,
due to colonial history and issues related to Irian Jaya.
Second, would Australia
agree “to be bound and to abide by the Charter”? Article 7.2 of Charter states that “The ASEAN
Summit shall be the supreme policy-making body of ASEAN.” ASEAN membership would necessarily mean that
Australia would be subject to decisions made by the leaders of ASEAN, who
reflect a variety of systems including varying forms of democracy, Communists, a military junta and a monarch. Would Australians accept
this?
Third, would Australia have
the “ability and willingness to carry out the obligations of Membership”? At first glance, this should not be an issue
for a developed country such as Australia.
However, agreeing to submit to arbitration (including investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) under the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement)
is part of the obligations of ASEAN membership. With Australia having a more
skeptical view of ISDS, would the country really want to join a regional economic
bloc where ISDS is part of the operating system?
Mr. Keating’s remarks seem
to be intended to provoke discussion and promote greater Australian interest in
ASEAN. That’s a good thing. However, these things take on a life of their
own, meaning that they should be scrutinized on their substantive merits in
addition to their intellectual points. The ASPI articles and my own analysis
indicate that this proposal will not get past the university seminar room.
Apologies for not posting recently. I have been very busy advising Timor-Leste on
its ASEAN accession and on a feasibility study on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
for the Thai Ministry of Commerce. Also, frankly, there have not been very many
AEC developments to discuss recently. Hopefully this will change soon.
