Connect with us

International

ASEAN’s diplomatic dance with BRICS

While BRICS expands its global influence, ASEAN faces pivotal choices. Balancing regional responsibilities with global ambitions, Southeast Asia’s bloc must navigate geopolitical currents without upending delicate power dynamics, says Simone Galimberti.

Published

1 year ago

on

by Simone Galimberti

The lack of new members from Southeast Asia in the recently expanded ASEAN should be seen as an opportunity to rethink the responsibilities of the founding members of ASEAN.

Perhaps Ethiopia is the only country that can boast about its new membership in the BRICS – a grouping of the world economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

While it is the second-most populous nation in Africa and a regional power that has seen impressive growth in the last two decades, Ethiopia, until recently, was marred by a catastrophic civil war.

This conflict’s reverberations are still felt by millions of citizens. The associated tensions and violence, combined with the accompanying starvation, remain a constant daily threat to the nation’s future.

Only such a daring scenario can justify the jubilation shown by PM Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia when his country was added to the list of the six new countries joining the BRICS.

Similarly, Argentina, grappling with hyperinflation, a shattered economy, and the looming prospect of a populist and libertarian politician becoming a presidential contender next year, might find some pride in being admitted to the BRICS.

From South East Asia’s perspective, the situation is quite the opposite.

The exclusion of any ASEAN members from the expanded BRICS didn’t cause an uproar. Instead, it was met with a realistic assessment that understands the delicate dynamics of power in the region and the wider Asia Pacific.

The rationale for such a reaction can be discerned from understanding what the BRICS truly represents.

“They’re geographically separated and have all sorts of political differences,” says historian Michael Dillon, emphasizing the border conflicts between China and India and noting that “the expanding Indian economy is certainly competing with the Chinese economy.”

The King’s College academic isn’t alone in expressing scepticism about the BRICS enlargement discussed last week at the Johannesburg Summit. Many pundits share concerns about the future prospects of this expanded group.

Even experts from Indonesia, one of the South East Asian countries frequently mentioned as a potential BRICS member, express reservations. While there would be trade and investment benefits, Indonesia must consider the trade-offs of potential BRICS membership.

“Analyzing how BRICS membership would affect regional relations and stability is key to understanding the long-term consequences,” explains Nailul Huda, an economist from the Institute for Development of Economics and Finance, in the Malaysian daily, The Star.

This view is shared by President Jokowi of Indonesia, who remains cautious about the impact of his country joining the BRICS. Although Indonesia has forged close ties with Beijing, current geopolitical dynamics necessitate that Asia-Pacific leaders avoid disrupting the existing balance of power.

Vietnam, another country seen as a strong potential BRICS candidate, has similarly been hesitant despite its ideology-driven foreign policy.

Before delving deeper into the implications for Southeast Asian nations of joining or abstaining from the BRICS, it’s worth comparing the BRICS with entities it seeks to emulate.

While one of the BRICS’ aims is to counterbalance the G7, the latter is primarily symbolic. Similarly, the G20, though more significant, remains symbolic. The position of the expanded BRICS among these groups remains uncertain.

The BRICS nations haven’t been a tight-knit geopolitical alliance and often diverge on key issues. Their collaboration arises more from intersecting interests among varied stakeholders than from shared values or geography. This lack of value coherence, coupled with geographical diversity, weakens the BRICS forum.

Leaders like President Lula of Brazil and President Ramaphosa of South Africa might criticize American imperialism and European self-righteousness. Still, their views differ sharply from the aggressive foreign policies of President Putin of Russia and President Xi of China.

While shared concerns might exist among some BRICS nations, the democratic mandates of countries like Brazil and South Africa align them more with the USA, Canada, and the EU than with China and Russia.

Thus, President Jokowi likely made a wise decision not to advocate for Indonesia’s BRICS membership. While the Philippines under President Duterte might have pushed to join, the new administration of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos has shifted the narrative.

A novel solution could involve ASEAN, as a regional legal entity, becoming an observer in the BRICS. This move, while symbolic, wouldn’t risk jeopardizing ASEAN’s Western relations. However, ASEAN’s effectiveness and relevance are in question, evidenced by US President Biden’s potential absence from upcoming ASEAN Summits.

The potential for increased regional cooperation and eventual integration exists in Southeast Asia, but it remains a distant dream. This challenging reality is something that proponents of a united ASEAN must confront.

A possible way forward involves approaching geopolitics and foreign relations creatively to identify untapped partnership paths. The ASEAN 5, the bloc’s founders, could brainstorm and formulate a strategy for enhanced intra-regional cooperation outside of ASEAN’s framework.

This doesn’t imply neglecting their ASEAN duties. It’s beneficial to maintain the facade of ASEAN’s relevance. But allowing a less central player like the ASEAN Secretariat to represent them in BRICS might be wise.

Hopefully, the ASEAN 5 will recognize the advantages of closer cooperation and partnership. Such a move would have a transformative impact on the region and the broader Asia Pacific.

Simone Galimberti writes on democracy, social inclusion, youth development, regional integration, SDGs and human rights in the context of Asia Pacific.

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

International

UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopts resolution calling for Israel to end occupation of Palestinian territories

The UN General Assembly has passed a resolution urging Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories within a year. Backed by an ICJ advisory opinion, the resolution reflects broad international opposition to the occupation, though key nations like the US opposed it.

Published

16 hours ago

on

19 September 2024

By

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has passed a resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories within a year, a decision that Palestine hailed as “historic.”

The nonbinding resolution, passed by a vote of 124-12 with 43 abstentions, demands Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory within 12 months and pay reparations for damages incurred during the occupation.

The resolution also backed an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which had previously declared Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories to be unlawful.

The ICJ stressed that Israel, as an occupying power, is in violation of international humanitarian law due to its settlement activities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The UNGA vote occurred as Israel continues its military campaign in Gaza, where more than 41,250 Palestinians have been killed.

The ICJ had earlier issued rulings urging Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza and ensure adequate humanitarian aid reaches the population.

Among the 12 countries opposing the resolution were Israel, the United States, Czechia, Hungary, Argentina, and several Pacific island nations.

The US, which claims to support a two-state solution to the conflict, joined Israel in opposing the resolution.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the resolution, calling on the international community to pressure Israel to comply.

“The international consensus over this resolution renews the hopes of our Palestinian people…to achieve its aspirations of freedom and independence,” Abbas said, emphasizing the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

NGOs Urge UN Member States to Uphold ICJ Opinion and Halt Arms Sales to Israel

Additionally, over 30 NGOs, including Amnesty International, Oxfam, and War Child, urged UN Member States to adhere to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which denounced Israel’s decades-long occupation.

The NGOs highlighted ongoing human rights abuses such as forced displacement, settler violence, and a discriminatory permit regime limiting Palestinians’ access to essential services.

These organizations also called for a halt to arms sales to Israel, which they argue have contributed to a humanitarian catastrophe.

Singapore and Malaysia Vote in Favour of UN Resolution

Ambassador Burhan Gafoor of Singapore expressed support for the UNGA resolution based on respect for international law and the International Court of Justice.

“Singapore has always attached the greatest importance to international law and the principles of the UN Charter. ”

“We voted in favour of this resolution after careful and thorough consideration due to our respect for the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations as well as for international law more broadly.”

However, he highlighted several reservations, including concerns over using the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction to address political disputes and the resolution’s potential to harden positions between Israel and Palestine.

Gafoor emphasised that any solution to the conflict must come from direct negotiations between the two parties and expressed concern over the resolution’s overreaching measures that could hinder the peace process.

Malaysia welcomed the UN’s decision to implement the ICJ ruling, noting that the UN resolution underscores the collective responsibility and legal obligations of all States and international organisations to end Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and seek justice for the Palestinian people.

“Malaysia urges the international community to implement the Resolution in its entirety and without delay, for the Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination, safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as pursue socioeconomic development.”

“The resolution affirms Malaysia’s position on this long-standing issue,” the statement read.

The ICJ’s July opinion found that Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory violated fundamental principles of international law, asserting that no state should recognize or assist Israel’s continued presence in these territories.

Continue Reading

International

Explosive devices target Hezbollah in Lebanon, killing 20 and injuring over 450

Explosions targeting walkie-talkies killed 20 and injured over 450 in Lebanon. The attack, suspected to be carried out by Israel, escalates tensions with Hezbollah, raising international concerns of a potential war crime.

Published

17 hours ago

on

19 September 2024

By

A coordinated series of explosions targeting walkie-talkies in Lebanon killed at least 20 people and injured more than 450 on Wednesday, prompting international concerns that the attacks may constitute a war crime.

Thousands of booby-trapped communication devices exploded across Lebanese cities, particularly in Hezbollah strongholds, just one day after a similar attack involving pagers killed 12 and injured over 2,800.

Israel is widely suspected of being behind the strikes, escalating tensions with Hezbollah.

The explosions, described as “small in size” but widespread, mark a potential shift in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militant group that controls parts of Lebanon.

International observers have condemned the attacks, with UN Secretary General António Guterres calling for restraint while noting that the scale and strategy of the operation suggest it could be a prelude to a broader Israeli military assault on Lebanon.

On Tuesday, Israeli media reported that the decision to detonate the devices might have been driven by fears that Hezbollah was close to discovering Israeli efforts to sabotage its communications infrastructure.

Hezbollah confirmed that its walkie-talkies had been targeted in Wednesday’s explosions.

The attacks came shortly after a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US officials aimed at de-escalating the situation.

UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk warned that the indiscriminate nature of the explosions violated international law, as the devices targeted may have been in civilian possession.

Human Rights Watch echoed the sentiment, highlighting that booby traps such as these, which explode without specific targeting, breach international humanitarian law.

While Israel has not officially claimed responsibility for the attacks, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant praised Israeli intelligence agencies for their “great achievements” during a visit to a northern air force base, while stressing that military resources were being diverted northward to confront Hezbollah.

Netanyahu reaffirmed Israel’s commitment to returning northern Israeli residents to their homes, further suggesting a potential escalation.

Lebanese officials, including Hezbollah, have blamed Israel for the attacks, vowing retaliation. The explosions occurred during a tense period in Lebanon, where ongoing violence threatens to spiral into a broader regional conflict.

Continue Reading

Trending