The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region.
This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea.
The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led process to a Chinese-dominated process.
Most ASEAN members demurred from speaking up against China’s aggressive intentions in the region, which led to the emergence of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue among the US, India, Japan and Australia.
This year, there have been nuanced changes at ASEAN.
China has faced more criticism and protests over its actions than before. Although Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) did not attend the East Asia Summit, instead sending Chinese Premier Li Qiang (李強), he must have heard the concerns expressed by ASEAN and its partners. When the ASEAN Plus One meetings began, the China meeting on Thursday was among the earliest.
The ASEAN-China joint statement after that meeting expressed bonhomie and an intention to expand their comprehensive strategic partnership.
However, there are reports that the Philippines, Vietnam and Singapore as well as the new prime minister of Thailand expressed concern at Chinese activities in the South China Sea and the slow progress on a code of conduct for the region.
Li said that ASEAN-China relations have grown to have far-reaching impact in Asia and globally. He pledged to work with ASEAN to create a better future for Asia in the spirit of friendship, mutual benefit and inclusiveness, and to work with other countries in the region to build a better Asian community.
China blames US intervention in the region for the negative views expressed against Beijing.
However, this is suspect.
The Philippines, which has suffered the brunt of Chinese intervention in its exclusive economic zone and its outlying shoals, was apparently most vocal in asking China to abide by good principles. Other ASEAN members such as Vietnam that had been silent in recent years also spoke up. This possibly stems from a recent Chinese effort to curb Vietnamese fishing in disputed regions.
It was apparently the first time that maritime issues related to the South China Sea were raised by ASEAN members at the ASEAN-China meeting. Normally these are relegated to bilateral documents.
The code of conduct is now 20 years in the making and seems nowhere near completion.
If anything, Chinese obduracy on pursuing a code on its own terms has opened cleavages within ASEAN, with members needing to coordinate among themselves better. Those that face the direct brunt of Chinese intent are now speaking up more boldly, but get submerged in the economic agenda of ASEAN. Their voices are loud in discussions, but the volume is not reflected in ASEAN statements.
This is partly because the Quad countries have individually backed Manila and Hanoi with diplomatic and other support.
The “ASEAN Leaders’ Declaration on the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific for the Future-ready ASEAN and ASEAN-centered Regional Architecture” clearly asks all partners to respect ASEAN centrality and its norms, and contribute to the development of maritime security. This includes adherence to international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
India spoke more openly about keeping the South China Sea free and open and emphasizing UNCLOS, which ASEAN prefers. However, China wants to avoid it while negotiating a code of conduct.
India’s position on the South China Sea and UNCLOS has been clear, but this year’s ASEAN-India statement also referenced the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization so that the free and open Indo-Pacific concept would not only cover the sea, but also the air, with the rules of the international bodies to be implemented so that China would not have the liberty to set up its own rules or interpret rules as it sees fit.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the ASEAN-India meeting that this is the Asian century, for which India and ASEAN were best suited. This made it clear his belief that this is not a Chinese century alone, as Beijing would like ASEAN to believe.
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who was getting acquainted with many of the regional leaders after taking office at the start of this month, also met with Li. He was more muted than he was when he publicly called for the establishment of an “Asian NATO,” as well as when commenting that Chinese intrusions into Japanese waters and airspace were unacceptable. He was nevertheless clear that Japan opposes the continuing and intensifying activities that infringe upon its sovereignty in the East China Sea.
Most countries in the region want to engage China economically and functionally, rather than exclude it. However, Beijing’s efforts to treat the South China Sea as its private lake and do as it wishes, and then expand this horizon into other parts of the Indo-Pacific region, is starting to generate reactions.
Gurjit Singh is a former Indian ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, ASEAN, Ethiopia and the African Union.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
RSS