Insight: An expanded East Asia Summit should be welcomed

by Rizal Sukma, Jakarta

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

The Jakarta Post

Foreign ministers of ASEAN, during the 43rd ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in Hanoi last week, have made a wise decision with regard to the East Asian Summit (EAS). They agreed to recommend to ASEAN leaders to formally make the decision to invite the US and Russia to join the East Asia Summit (EAS). At the same time, however, they also stressed “the importance to maintain ASEAN centrality in the evolving regional architecture” in East Asia.

While the agreement clearly points to the eventual inclusion of the US and Russia as two new participating states of the EAS, it is not immediately clear what form their participation would take. The Joint Communiqué of the 43rd AMM is still vague, stating that the US and Russia will be invited to join the EAS “with appropriate arrangements and timing”.

The “appropriate arrangement” clause clearly raises an important question. It is true that the Joint Communiqué states that such arrangements “should be based on the promotion of existing EAS agenda and priorities”. However, we also know that there is still an ongoing debate within ASEAN regarding the preferred nature of US and Russia’s engagement in the EAS. Two views stand out in the debate: an expanded EAS and ASEAN+3.

The first view argues that the EAS should be expanded to include the US and Russia as fully pledged participating members, where both countries’ heads of government are expected to attend the annual EAS meeting. This formula, while maintaining the importance of ASEAN’s centrality, suggests that an expanded EAS, with US and Russia’s full participation, would provide a strong basis for a new regional architecture in the region. An expanded EAS would also become a regional platform for all major powers — the US, Russia, China, Japan, and India — to interact and cooperate with other lesser powers — ASEAN, Australia, and South Korea and New Zealand — to ensure a dynamic equilibrium in the region.

The other view, the ASEAN+8, suggests that the US and Russia’s engagement with East Asia should be organized within a separate framework from that of the EAS. This view argues that it would be difficult for the US president to attend the EAS on an annual basis.

The absence of US president in an EAS meeting, so this view goes, would weaken the EAS and undermine ASEAN’s centrality. Therefore, this view argues that an ASEAN+8 framework — to be convened when and if a US president can come — would provide a pragmatic solution for US and Russia’s engagement in East Asia.

So, which formula will prevail and serve both the interests of ASEAN and the two prospective members better? The result of 43rd AMM seems to suggest ASEAN is inclined to support the expanded EAS formula rather than establish an ASEAN+8 as an appropriate mechanism to accommodate the US and Russia. ASEAN’s foreign ministers also agreed to recommend this option to the leaders when they meet later this year in Hanoi.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, this is a wise decision. The decision to invite the US and Russia to an expanded EAS clearly reflects ASEAN’s openness to an inclusive process of regionalism in East Asia. It also reflects ASEAN’s awareness of the need to find the right response to the challenges brought about by a power shift in East Asia. At the same time, an expanded EAS formula would also treat both the US and Russia as inherent and indispensable, not as additional, players in East Asia; a status more commensurate with the reality.

The decision, when it is formally taken by ASEAN leaders later this year, would also reflect a more confident ASEAN in dealing with major powers. An expanded EAS would mean that the US and Russia are welcome in the grouping, and it is up to them as to how they would utilize the opportunity best. If they can attend the annual EAS meeting of head of states, that would be great. If they, for some reason, cannot attend it regularly, the EAS would go on.

An expanded ASEAN would also demonstrate that the process of East Asia community-building should continue regardless of whether a US president can attend the EAS. Indeed, it would be absurd for ASEAN, which claims itself to be a primary driving force, to organize a summit only and when an American president can come to the region. Therefore, an expanded ASEAN should be welcome as a decision that would preserve ASEAN’s dignity. (The Jakarta Post)

The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.