TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
ASEAN is challenged by the Sabah issue, yet again
However, it is evident that mechanisms for intra ASEAN peaceful settlement of disputes exist but are not invoked.
Change Size
T
he issue of Sabah or North Borneo, as it was known until 1963, was brushed under a legal carpet of convenience ever since the Malaysian Federation was formed. Sabah lies on the island of Borneo, the world’s third largest island astride the maritime routes of ASEAN.
About 73 percent of the island is the territory of five Indonesian provinces. It proposes to have its new capital in the resource-rich island which it calls Kalimantan. The small country of Brunei is located on Borneo and the remainder is the territory of Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia.
The issue was reignited when the Philippines Foreign Secretary, Teodoro Locsin, Jr. challenged an innocuous United States Embassy tweet in July 2020 on humanitarian assistance to Filipinos who came from Sabah. The Filipino minister said Sabah was not in Malaysia. A diplomatic spat ensued with Malaysia, who also approached the United Nations, not ASEAN.
When ASEAN was born in 1976 the atmosphere was more conducive. At the ASEAN Summit in August 1977, Philippines President Marcos announced that he would try and end this left-over issue but this was not followed up. When diplomatic ties with Malaysia were normalized, Philippines ceased to press the Sabah issue either bilaterally or within ASEAN.
In 2002, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) took up a case between Malaysia and Indonesia on the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan. Philippines sought to be impleaded as a claimant to the North Borneo as successor to the state of Sulu but the ICJ declined their request as it did not see these islands, despite proximity to North Borneo, as linked issues. The Islands were awarded to Malaysia. The issue has laid there like a sleeping dragon.
ASEAN has done well to hold its pack together after the travails of Malaysian formation and the Vietnam War. It had rarely had to face such mutual attacks on each other by member states. The Preah Vihear case between Thailand and Cambodia and the recurrent Rohingya issue in Myanmar have been difficult for ASEAN to handle.
ASEAN has built a multifaceted community including a defense and security pillar. At inception, it lacked specialized systems to deal with internal disputes unlike the African Union which has its own Peace and Security Council etc. Lack of avenues to help hold the peace and prevent escalation often leads to holding the situation and putting issues on hold as in the Sabah case.
ASEAN is hindered as it has no mechanism to bring in nonstate actors into the process as it found when the Sulu irregulars intruded into Malaysia. ASEAN preferred to see it as Malaysia’s internal problem even though cross-border intrusion was evident. It was only Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who mentioned that ASEAN and its chairman must deal with such issues in 2013.
However, it is evident that mechanisms for intra ASEAN peaceful settlement of disputes exist but are not invoked. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia of 1976 which all ASEAN members and many of their friends have signed does provide a mechanism for such cases but it remains unutilized in 44 years.
For the Thailand-Cambodia issue in 2011 however it was Indonesian leadership with their foreign minister Marty Natalegawa using the nature of mechanisms set out in the TAC without invoking it. He went into mediation and conciliation without ascribing terms and sought to alleviate the tension.
Despite shooting and deaths, he persuaded both parties at an informal ASEAN ministerial meeting (substituting for the High Council of TAC) to send up to 40 Indonesian observers to oversee the peace. Thailand ultimately declined. This was the best effort ever by an ASEAN chair to try and mediate in a regional dispute. Cambodia took the matter back to the ICJ to clarify its 1962 ruling and won the case in November 2013.
In 2012 when the ASEAN foreign ministers for the first time could not agree on a joint statement due to intransigence by the Cambodian chair, in avoiding criticism of China over the South China Sea it was again left to Indonesia (through Marty) to shuttle between various capitals of ASEAN to finally get an agreed statement.
In 2013 the intrusion into Sabah took place by Sulu irregulars. ASEAN action was lacking even though Brunei, who knew the genesis of the issue, was the chair. In 2017 the Rohingya issue again challenged the ASEAN community, its respect for human rights versus the policy of non-interference. How do you build an ASEAN community without intervening in a friendly manner when things go wrong?
ASEAN needs to realize that the world it grew up in has altered and internal issues also need attention. The peoples ASEAN envisaged by the socio-cultural community, will have no meaning unless dispute settlement mechanisms are strengthened. This will happen if ASEAN introduces realism in its functional approach. ASEAN achievements have come from well calibrated “cooperative leadership and partnership in the region, and an unshakeable belief in the efficacy of diplomacy.”
Today Indonesia is showing leadership in dealing with the Rohingya issue with Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi making strenuous efforts. But not so much on the Sabah issue.
ASEAN can play an informal background role than externalize all disputes to the UN. However, with more populist foreign policies in vogue the ASEAN cooperative spirit is no more as strong as it used to be.
The ability to manage disputes is not being tested by invoking TAC or ASEAN chairs or individual members own efforts. There is an evident leadership deficit within ASEAN as it is preoccupied with Chinese aggressive intent, the creation of Quad and the Indo-Pacific. This threatens ASEAN centrality in real terms. Their unwillingness to manage their disputes will hasten the blurring of their centrality and their view of regional security
For ASEAN to succeed in its community building it needs to adhere to not only its extant principles but also to the evolving ones. It needs to manage this community with conciliation and trust and find the ways to resolve dormant matters by dealing with them and not keep them hidden in cupboards from where they emerge when least expected.
A regional security vision needs to be built which is not only external to ASEAN but also looks within.
***
The writer is former Indian ambassador to Indonesia and ASEAN.
