Happy Thanksgiving 2013!

Today is Thanksgiving in the US.  I am reposting here an article I wrote in 2011 for the Singapore Straits Times on the unique American nature of Thanksgiving.  Happy Thanksgiving!

ASEAN's (Limited?!) Role in Typhoon Haiyan Relief

In the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan, there have a been a few articles lamenting the slow pace of ASEAN’s response to the disaster recovery, in the Bangkok Post and elsewhere.  Although I agree that the disaster recovery efforts in the Philippines may appear to be relatively slow and ineffective, much of the problems are related to domestic obstacles in the Philippines, and too much “blame” in my opinion is being placed on the ASEAN institutions.

Those comparing ASEAN’s reaction in Typhoon Haiyan with that of the US federal government in the Katrina hurricane disaster aftermath do not properly acknowledge the key difference between the two situations.  The US federal government had full authority to nationalize the situation but did not do so immediately, for whatever reasons.  ASEAN, on the other hand, has no such authority to intervene directly in the Philippines.  

The core principle of non-interference in domestic affairs, and the fact that ASEAN as a regional bloc operates mostly as a club of national governments, mean that ASEAN as an institution is relatively limited in what it can and cannot do in the current situation.  When dealing with the national leadership of an ASEAN member, ASEAN institutions have been effective in dealing with disaster relief and disaster planning.

For example, after Cyclone Nargis, the Myanmar regime initially refused to accept foreign relief aid.  Only after peer pressure from the other ASEAN members did the regime accept such aid.  The reversal of the Myanmar military regime’s decision may even have helped trigger the political and economic reforms now going on in the country.

In another example, during the avian flu scare, multinational drug companies offered to donate vaccines and medicines to ASEAN.  Singapore had sufficient facilities to store the medicine, and was centrally located as a transportation hub to distribute the medicine should the occasion arise.  However, for its own reasons Malaysia objected to Singapore as the base country, causing an impasse where neither country could accept the medicine, since neither country could act on behalf of ASEAN.  The ASEAN Secretary General then acted to break the impasse and accepted the medicines on his own authority  as ASEAN Secretary General.  This is a rarely reported, and frankly, commendable act by the ASEAN Secretary General.

Thus, the ASEAN institutions can be effective, particularly when dealing with the national level governments in disaster relief.  This is what ASEAN offered before and after Typhoon Haiyan, and the Philippine government has been cooperating with ASEAN and other foreign donors.  The more difficult task for ASEAN institutions is what to do when peer pressure does not seem to work or an ASEAN member may be willing to comply, but lacks the capability or competency to implement its ASEAN commitments.  The annual haze is an example of both types of situations, whereas the Typhoon Haiyan situation may be an example of the latter type.  All of the aid money in the world is not going to help the victims in the Philippines if the funds are not spent well by those on the ground.

The criticism of ASEAN should therefore be viewed with these institutional limitations in mind.   That is not to say that more aid funding should not be forthcoming from ASEAN; the other ASEAN member states need to step up their funding to another member of ASEAN.  However, it is off the mark to criticize ASEAN for other aspects of the recovery effort which are not really in its remit but are under that of the Philippine government.   

In any event, there will be more disasters for ASEAN to face. Some will be dramatic like Typhoon Haiyan, some will be continuing, like AIDS and other public health issues, and others will be both visible and continuing, like the haze.  The cross-border nature of these disasters means that ASEAN is well placed to deal with these disasters – if the ASEAN institutions are properly supported and augmented.  That needs to be done before the next disaster springs upon the region.

Preah Vihear: After the ICJ Ruling, ASEAN Needed More than Ever

This week the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling that elaborated on its 1962 judgment in the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute involving the Preah Vihear temple.   I will leave it to more learned practitioners of international border disputes and the ICJ to provide detailed legal analysis of the decision.   Instead, this post focuses on the implications of the ruling for ASEAN.

Basically, Cambodia won a partial victory.  The ICJ ruled that the temple and the promontory around the temple were Cambodian territory, following from the 1962 ICJ ruling.  However, the ICJ rejected Cambodia’s argument that the 1962 ruling also covered another stretch of disputed territory, the hill of Phnom Trap such that the ICJ did not address the substance of Cambodia’s arguments.  In this, Thailand can claim some partial satisfaction from the ruling.  Both sides said that they would engage in negotiations over the remaining dispute. 

The ICJ ruling neatly follows the rules of judicial economy, which is helpful in the current circumstances.  By not ruling on all of Cambodia’s claims, the ICJ avoided issuing a decision that would have been totally unacceptable to one side or the other.  The Thais, in particular, would have been incensed had the ICJ ruled that Phnom Trap was in Cambodian territory.

As it stands, Thailand and Cambodia both have reasons to accept the ruling, at least as it pertains to Preah Vihear itself.  The ICJ ruling is a tactical victory for the Hun Sen government, which has been weakened by its poor election performance but still dominates Cambodia. The Yingluck Shinawatra government has the more difficult balancing task in Thailand.  It does not want to prolong the dispute with the Hun Sen government, with which it is more friendly, but it also does not want to provoke the Thai opposition into mass demonstrations which could encourage a change in government.

Thus, as ever, the course of the Preah Vihear dispute will depend on Thai domestic politics.  If the Yingluck government feels that it must act more aggressively to fend off domestic critics or a more antagonistic government rises to power in Thailand, the remaining dispute regarding Phnom Trap could be a potential conflict point.  However, unlike the Preah Vihear dispute, the ICJ would not provide immediate recourse; a fresh case would have to be brought, which could take years. 

In this context, ASEAN  and the ASEAN institutions need to be willing, and more importantly, able to intervene if and when the Cambodia-Thailand dispute flares up again.  Indonesia, acting as ASEAN Chair, successfully intervened in 2011 by brokering a stand down.  Myanmar as 2014 ASEAN Chair and Malaysia as 2015 ASEAN Chair have no vested interests in the dispute, and the ASEAN Secretary General Le Luong Minh is from Vietnam, which is also viewed as neutral in the dispute.  Hence from a diplomatic point of view, these actors will have more credibility to act on behalf of ASEAN should a Cambodia-Thailand dispute arise.

The real question is whether the ASEAN institutions are up to the task. The ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation’s High Council and the dispute settlement procedures available under the ASEAN Charter have never been invoked.  Cambodia and Thailand may not want to subject themselves to a dispute procedure run by their ASEAN peers, but beefing up those tools would at least give Cambodia and Thailand the practical option of using ASEAN procedures, and give the ASEAN institutions more credibility from a structural point of view. In this sense, more dispute resolution tools would be helpful, but only if they are seen as viable options by the parties involved.  Strengthening the ASEAN institutions and procedures thus would help avoid further bloodshed in the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute.