Time to Reconstruct ASEAN's China Policy
CHINO Keiko / Journalist
June 16, 2014
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has gone one step further in its response in the territorial dispute between Vietnam and China over the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands in Chinese and Hoàng Sa Archipelago in Vietnamese) in the South China Sea, triggered by China's drilling activities in the area. ASEAN issued an unprecedented emergency statement at its meeting of foreign ministers and adopted the "Naypyidaw Declaration" calling for a peaceful resolution of the issue in the summit meeting that followed, demonstrating their solidarity to the international community.
However, that was the most they could do. And instead of backing down, China has continued drilling as planned towards a fait accompli. In other words, it has shown no intentions of heeding either criticism from the international community or objections from Vietnam and ASEAN.
Moreover, China's blatant great-power mentality became even more apparent during the IISS Asia Security Summit, or the Shangri-La Dialogue, which took place recently in Singapore. Gone are the days when China repeated its "peaceful rise" slogan in an effort to appease international concerns.
The latest developments have created a pressing need for ASEAN to reconstruct its diplomatic policy in line with China's transformation.
China was invited to become a partial participant to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting as an observer in 1991, and its status was elevated to that of a fully participating Dialogue Partner Country in 1996. In retrospect, that was the prologue to a "rising China." In the 18 years since, China has made remarkable progress to become a major economic and military power in the world. ASEAN has also developed in its own right, but it is a far cry from what China has achieved, and the gap has significantly widened over the years.
It is a well-known fact that since its establishment, ASEAN has increased its presence by turning its status as a union of small countries into an advantage. To use its favorite expression, ASEAN sat in the "driver's seat" and carried a succession of countries outside the region - namely Japan, the United States, South Korea, China and Australia - on the back seat as it sped through the international arena. A typical example of such multilateral collaboration is the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which aims to peacefully resolve disputes through a dialogue on security issues.
The problem is that this dialogue approach has been conveniently used by China in the latest territorial dispute and has benefited China more than ASEAN. I am not urging ASEAN to discard this approach. However, I do want to emphasize the inadequacy of its current approach to dialogue, which only serves to supplement a conciliatory stance towards China.
To use a paradoxical expression, it is time for ASEAN to conduct a level-headed review of its very status as a union of small countries. Some of the member countries are strongly dependent on China, either attracted by its market or by the economic aid it offers, and there are countries that have no territorial disputes with China. There is a perception gap towards China among the ranks of ASEAN, and China makes its advance on the weakest link. Yet, the history of ASEAN has shown that reinforcing solidarity has been the best strategy for turning the disadvantage of being a small country into an advantage.
Even so, it is difficult to confront China head on. The winds billowing out of China have become almost too much to bear. While ASEAN is seeking economic union in 2015, the issue of regional security seems to be gaining greater significance.
ASEAN also needs a greater effort to encourage deeper involvement of its external dialogue partners. These partner countries should also split the responsibility of taking the driver's seat when the going gets rough, instead of leaving it up to ASEAN to do the driving. The historic visit to Asia by U.S. President Barack Obama will only be meaningful when accompanied by consistent, unwavering involvement by the United States. Japan must also step up its cooperation and collaboration with ASEAN in an effort to prevent the East China Sea into becoming the South China Sea of tomorrow.
The pressing issue facing ASEAN is to quickly formulate a legally binding code of conduct. Since China offers only superficial agreement to negotiations, making a broader call beyond the region to turn the development of such a code into an international agenda may also be an effective ploy. Opposition from China should be taken for granted in making such a move; the point is to launch a powerful appeal for legal compliance.
ASEAN will send a delegation to the G20 meeting in November to make an appeal on the South China Sea issue. It should make active use of such international forums. Another option is for Vietnam to follow the Philippines and take its case to the international courts of justice.
Finally, ASEAN should also approach China as part of its diplomatic efforts. The South China Sea may indeed become Chinese territory someday. But is becoming a major power surrounded by hostile neighbors a "Chinese dream" come true? I hope such a voice of self-examination gains strength among the Chinese people.
Keiko Chino is Guest Columnist of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
However, that was the most they could do. And instead of backing down, China has continued drilling as planned towards a fait accompli. In other words, it has shown no intentions of heeding either criticism from the international community or objections from Vietnam and ASEAN.
Moreover, China's blatant great-power mentality became even more apparent during the IISS Asia Security Summit, or the Shangri-La Dialogue, which took place recently in Singapore. Gone are the days when China repeated its "peaceful rise" slogan in an effort to appease international concerns.
The latest developments have created a pressing need for ASEAN to reconstruct its diplomatic policy in line with China's transformation.
China was invited to become a partial participant to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting as an observer in 1991, and its status was elevated to that of a fully participating Dialogue Partner Country in 1996. In retrospect, that was the prologue to a "rising China." In the 18 years since, China has made remarkable progress to become a major economic and military power in the world. ASEAN has also developed in its own right, but it is a far cry from what China has achieved, and the gap has significantly widened over the years.
It is a well-known fact that since its establishment, ASEAN has increased its presence by turning its status as a union of small countries into an advantage. To use its favorite expression, ASEAN sat in the "driver's seat" and carried a succession of countries outside the region - namely Japan, the United States, South Korea, China and Australia - on the back seat as it sped through the international arena. A typical example of such multilateral collaboration is the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which aims to peacefully resolve disputes through a dialogue on security issues.
The problem is that this dialogue approach has been conveniently used by China in the latest territorial dispute and has benefited China more than ASEAN. I am not urging ASEAN to discard this approach. However, I do want to emphasize the inadequacy of its current approach to dialogue, which only serves to supplement a conciliatory stance towards China.
To use a paradoxical expression, it is time for ASEAN to conduct a level-headed review of its very status as a union of small countries. Some of the member countries are strongly dependent on China, either attracted by its market or by the economic aid it offers, and there are countries that have no territorial disputes with China. There is a perception gap towards China among the ranks of ASEAN, and China makes its advance on the weakest link. Yet, the history of ASEAN has shown that reinforcing solidarity has been the best strategy for turning the disadvantage of being a small country into an advantage.
Even so, it is difficult to confront China head on. The winds billowing out of China have become almost too much to bear. While ASEAN is seeking economic union in 2015, the issue of regional security seems to be gaining greater significance.
ASEAN also needs a greater effort to encourage deeper involvement of its external dialogue partners. These partner countries should also split the responsibility of taking the driver's seat when the going gets rough, instead of leaving it up to ASEAN to do the driving. The historic visit to Asia by U.S. President Barack Obama will only be meaningful when accompanied by consistent, unwavering involvement by the United States. Japan must also step up its cooperation and collaboration with ASEAN in an effort to prevent the East China Sea into becoming the South China Sea of tomorrow.
The pressing issue facing ASEAN is to quickly formulate a legally binding code of conduct. Since China offers only superficial agreement to negotiations, making a broader call beyond the region to turn the development of such a code into an international agenda may also be an effective ploy. Opposition from China should be taken for granted in making such a move; the point is to launch a powerful appeal for legal compliance.
ASEAN will send a delegation to the G20 meeting in November to make an appeal on the South China Sea issue. It should make active use of such international forums. Another option is for Vietnam to follow the Philippines and take its case to the international courts of justice.
Finally, ASEAN should also approach China as part of its diplomatic efforts. The South China Sea may indeed become Chinese territory someday. But is becoming a major power surrounded by hostile neighbors a "Chinese dream" come true? I hope such a voice of self-examination gains strength among the Chinese people.
Keiko Chino is Guest Columnist of the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
再考迫られるＡＳＥＡＮの対中外交
千野 境子 / ジャーナリスト
2014年 6月 16日
中国による南シナ海パラセル（西沙）諸島付近での石油掘削作業に端を発したベトナムと中国の対立で，東南アジア諸国連合（ＡＳＥＡＮ）の対応は従来と比べて一歩踏み込んだものだった。ＡＳＥＡＮ外相会議で異例の緊急声明を発出したことや、続く首脳会議で南シナ海問題の平和的解決を謳った「ネピドー宣言」を採択し、国際社会に結束力を示したことなどである。
しかし対応もそこまでが精一杯。中国はその後も掘削を撤回するどころか作業を着々と進め、既成事実化を図っている。つまり国際社会の批判も、ベトナムやＡＳＡＮの反対も、まったく意に介さない。
また先ごろシンガポールで行われたアジア安全保障会議（シャングリラ・ダイアローグ）では、大国主義露わな中国の姿勢が一段と明確になった。そこには心配無用と「平和的台頭」を繰り返した往時の中国はない。
そしてこれらはＡＳＥＡＮも中国の変貌に合わせて、対中外交の再構築を急ぐ必要性を迫るものだろう。
中国が１９９１年のＡＳＥＡＮ外相会議へのゲスト参加という、いわば部分参加から完全な域外対話国に昇格したのは９６年。振り返れば、それは「台頭する中国」の幕開けだった。それから１８年、中国は驚異的発展を遂げ、世界の経済・軍事大国となった。もちろんＡＳＥＡＮも発展したが、中国の比ではなく、その差は当時より格段に大きい。
ＡＳＥＡＮが発足以来、小国連合であることを逆手に存在感を高めてきたことは良く知られている。彼らが好む表現である「運転席」に自ら座り、日米韓中豪など域外国を次々に後部座席に乗せ、多国間協調により国際場裏を走ってきた。紛争の平和的解決を目指す安全保障対話「ＡＳＥＡＮ地域フォーラム（ＡＲＦ）」はその典型であろう。
しかし問題は、こうした対話路線が南シナ海問題では中国に都合よく使われ、ＡＳＥＡＮよりは中国を利していることだ。だから対話路線を捨てよと言うのではない。結果的には対中融和の補完でしかない、現在の対話路線の不十分さを強調したいのである。
逆説的に言えば、ＡＳＥＡＮはあらためて小国連合としての在り方を冷静に見直す時だ。市場や経済援助の魅力から中国依存が強い国や領有権問題のない国もあり、ＡＳＥＡＮ内には対中温度差がある。中国はその弱い環に攻勢をかける。しかしＡＳＥＡＮの歴史は、結束力の強化こそが小国の弱みを強みに変える最善の方法だったことを示している。
それでも中国と真正面から向き合うのは難しい。中国の風圧は今やそれほど強い。２０１５年に経済の共同体を目指すＡＳＥＡＮだが、むしろ重要性がより高まっているのは安全保障の分野の方ではないか。
域外対話国の関与をさらに深める努力も必要だ。域外国の方も運転手任せでなく、悪路には運転を代わる責任分担も欲しい。オバマ米大統領のアジア歴訪は米国の継続的で確固たる関与があって、初めて生きる。また日本は東シナ海が明日の南シナ海にならないよう、一層の対ＡＳＥＡＮ協力と連携が望まれる。
ＡＳＥＡＮの喫緊の課題は法的拘束力を持つ行動規範作りを急ぐことだ。中国は交渉に名ばかり合意の状態だから、ＡＳＥＡＮが域外国に広く呼びかけ、行動規範策定を国際的課題にするのも一法である。中国の反対は織り込み済みで、狙いは「法の順守」を強くアピールすることにある。
ＡＳＥＡＮは１１月のＧ２０会合に南シナ海問題で代表を派遣する。こうした国際会議の場も積極的に活用すべきだろう。またフィリピンに続いて、ベトナムが国際司法の場に提訴することも選択肢の１つである。
最後にこれらの外交努力は当然、中国への働きかけという側面もある。南シナ海が中国の海になっても、反中・嫌中と化した周辺国に囲まれた大国は果たして「中国夢」なのだろうか。そう自省する中国人の声が大きくなることを期待したい。
（筆者は産経新聞 客員論説委員。）
しかし対応もそこまでが精一杯。中国はその後も掘削を撤回するどころか作業を着々と進め、既成事実化を図っている。つまり国際社会の批判も、ベトナムやＡＳＡＮの反対も、まったく意に介さない。
また先ごろシンガポールで行われたアジア安全保障会議（シャングリラ・ダイアローグ）では、大国主義露わな中国の姿勢が一段と明確になった。そこには心配無用と「平和的台頭」を繰り返した往時の中国はない。
そしてこれらはＡＳＥＡＮも中国の変貌に合わせて、対中外交の再構築を急ぐ必要性を迫るものだろう。
中国が１９９１年のＡＳＥＡＮ外相会議へのゲスト参加という、いわば部分参加から完全な域外対話国に昇格したのは９６年。振り返れば、それは「台頭する中国」の幕開けだった。それから１８年、中国は驚異的発展を遂げ、世界の経済・軍事大国となった。もちろんＡＳＥＡＮも発展したが、中国の比ではなく、その差は当時より格段に大きい。
ＡＳＥＡＮが発足以来、小国連合であることを逆手に存在感を高めてきたことは良く知られている。彼らが好む表現である「運転席」に自ら座り、日米韓中豪など域外国を次々に後部座席に乗せ、多国間協調により国際場裏を走ってきた。紛争の平和的解決を目指す安全保障対話「ＡＳＥＡＮ地域フォーラム（ＡＲＦ）」はその典型であろう。
しかし問題は、こうした対話路線が南シナ海問題では中国に都合よく使われ、ＡＳＥＡＮよりは中国を利していることだ。だから対話路線を捨てよと言うのではない。結果的には対中融和の補完でしかない、現在の対話路線の不十分さを強調したいのである。
逆説的に言えば、ＡＳＥＡＮはあらためて小国連合としての在り方を冷静に見直す時だ。市場や経済援助の魅力から中国依存が強い国や領有権問題のない国もあり、ＡＳＥＡＮ内には対中温度差がある。中国はその弱い環に攻勢をかける。しかしＡＳＥＡＮの歴史は、結束力の強化こそが小国の弱みを強みに変える最善の方法だったことを示している。
それでも中国と真正面から向き合うのは難しい。中国の風圧は今やそれほど強い。２０１５年に経済の共同体を目指すＡＳＥＡＮだが、むしろ重要性がより高まっているのは安全保障の分野の方ではないか。
域外対話国の関与をさらに深める努力も必要だ。域外国の方も運転手任せでなく、悪路には運転を代わる責任分担も欲しい。オバマ米大統領のアジア歴訪は米国の継続的で確固たる関与があって、初めて生きる。また日本は東シナ海が明日の南シナ海にならないよう、一層の対ＡＳＥＡＮ協力と連携が望まれる。
ＡＳＥＡＮの喫緊の課題は法的拘束力を持つ行動規範作りを急ぐことだ。中国は交渉に名ばかり合意の状態だから、ＡＳＥＡＮが域外国に広く呼びかけ、行動規範策定を国際的課題にするのも一法である。中国の反対は織り込み済みで、狙いは「法の順守」を強くアピールすることにある。
ＡＳＥＡＮは１１月のＧ２０会合に南シナ海問題で代表を派遣する。こうした国際会議の場も積極的に活用すべきだろう。またフィリピンに続いて、ベトナムが国際司法の場に提訴することも選択肢の１つである。
最後にこれらの外交努力は当然、中国への働きかけという側面もある。南シナ海が中国の海になっても、反中・嫌中と化した周辺国に囲まれた大国は果たして「中国夢」なのだろうか。そう自省する中国人の声が大きくなることを期待したい。
（筆者は産経新聞 客員論説委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟