Asean’s Pains and Remedies

Considering all the developments outlined above, a timely question is what specific dangers ASEAN is exposed to, as well as what countermeasures it can adopt. Some observations are worthy of note.

Arguably, the association faces real prospects for losing its digital sovereignty (understood as ASEAN’s own digital infrastructure and strong digital competences, as well as the ASEAN member states’ ability to implement an independent policy in the internet in accordance with the international law), mostly as an aftereffect of the emerging Sino-US contradictions. In fact, the association is again being torn apart by China and the United States, this time along the digital lines, with prospects for digital bipolarity. While China and the US have repeatedly declared their intention to draw a line between their political contradictions and strengthen economic interdependence, including in Southeast Asia, does this priority extend to the digital sphere, and is the Sino-US technological interdependence possible? Or can it – by its definition – be nothing a “weaponized interdependence” at best?

Another potential threat for the association stems from prospects for new imbalances, both between and within (emphasis added – the authors) the Southeast Asian states. The Fourth Industrial Revolution entails large-scale social aftereffects, mainly a widening income gap, which will overlap with the deep-rooted social, ethnic and religious problems prevalent in Southeast Asia. If so, ASEAN will be unable to successfully develop regional integration as long as the processes of national integration are unfinished.

ASEAN’s vulnerability is reinforced by potentially negative implications for ASEAN-led multilateral dialogue platforms on political-security issues. As China continues to build its own security system in Eurasia portraying itself as the exclusive provider of economic benefits, the ASEAN-driven multilateral venues are likely to slip into irrelevance.

For ASEAN, a core premise in tackling these problems comes from its readiness to perform a double-edged task. The association should increase the manageability of challenges it encountered before the present digital problems appeared and at the same time strengthen its digital capacity-building. Both tasks make ASEAN upgrade its relations with extra-regional partners.

But these partners should simultaneously (emphasis added – the authors) meet multiple criteria. As the confrontation between the Asia-Pacific big powers is rising, this partner should be willing to preserve the ASEAN-favored neutrality and inclusivity in “driving” the regional multilateral dialogue. As digitalization is a global phenomenon, this partner should be an established global power capable of shaping the global digital agenda. As ASEAN needs digital competences, this partner should respond to these expectations. As the association is scared by the intentions of China and the US to obtain unilateral benefits at the expense of ASEAN, this partner should be free from such intentions.

Reiterating that these criteria should be met fully rather than partially, among ASEAN’s array of external partners there is only one appropriate. This is the Russian Federation, which recently enhanced its relations with ASEAN to the level of Strategic Partnership. To make this relationship really strategic, as its name suggests, ASEAN and Russia should develop future-oriented, long-term and resourceful directions of cooperation. Arguably, the digital sphere offers the parties the best presently available option.

Conclusion

The digital stage of globalization with its political, economic and informational aftereffects is the “new normal” of international affairs while digital infrastructure and competences are the “new must-have” for international actors. For ASEAN striving to increase its global influence, this is especially relevant as it will specify on what terms the association will integrate in the global economy, politics and security.

ASEAN’s response is complicated by numerous factors, as the association has only partially succeeded in making Southeast Asia an investor-attractive economic area. As the international milieu in which the association has to implement its policy becomes increasingly competitive, ASEAN has to act without the previously prepared assets. Actually, the ASEAN-led multilateral formats and initiatives, unable to digitally support ASEAN’s prospective plans, as well as to ensure ASEAN’s extra-regional partners in ASEAN’s indispensability, are likely to present the association with new challenges.

To effectively cope with them, the association will have to revise its present mode of relations with dialogue partners. Among them, the Russian Federation, an established global power with unique digital competences and a long-standing trusted friend of the association, has ample changes to loom all the larger in ASEAN’s present and future order of international priority.

Асеан в политике Вьетнама: между двумя председательствами

ВУ Т. ЧАНГ

Институт Европейских исследований Вьетнамской академии общественных наук

vuthuytrang@yandex.ru

ТЕРСКИХ МИХАИЛ АНДРЕЕВИЧ

кандидат политических наук, научный сотрудник ИМЭМО РАН

mikhail.terskikh@gmail.com

ДИНЬ М. ТУАН

Институт Европейских исследований Вьетнамской академии общественных наук

tuaneu@gmail.com

В главе рассматривается АСЕАН как направление внешней политики Вьетнама в период между председательствами Ханоя в этой организации в 2010 и 2020 годах. Выявлены произошедшие за этот период во внешней среде изменения, повлиявшие на политику Ассоциации (рост соперничества между великими державами, обострение споров в Южно-Китайском море, рост протекционизма, рестрикционизма и национализма, нетрадиционных вызовов безопасности, включая изменения климата и т. д.), а также вклад Вьетнама в формирование ответа АСЕАН на них. Подробно изучены приоритеты Ханоя в период председательства в 2020 году – как декларируемые, так и практические.

На взгляд авторов, из-за обострения конкуренции между великими державами, которое может иметь серьезные последствия для Юго-Восточной Азии, нынешнее председательство Вьетнама становится поворотным моментом в истории АСЕАН. Осознавая существо проблем, с которыми сталкивается Ассоциация, вьетнамское председательство предлагает партнерам СРВ по АСЕАН и внешним игрокам повестку сотрудничества с отчетливой консолидирующей составляющей.

Новизна исследования проистекает из актуальности рассмотрения вероятных действий Вьетнама в качестве нынешнего председателя АСЕАН, в основе анализ связей между изменениями международной обстановки в Юго-Восточной Азии в период между 2010 и 2020 годами, ответными мерами АСЕАН их вьетнамской составляющей. В соответствии с такой аналитической парадигмой проводится детальная оценка приоритетов и направлений политики СРВ в период председательства в АСЕАН в 2020 году. Выводы по этим вопросам определяют практическую значимость и научную актуальность исследования.

Ключевые слова: Вьетнам, АСЕАН, Юго-Восточная Азия, АТР, ИТР, Южно-Китайское море, безопасность, сотрудничество.

ASEAN IN VIETNAM’S POLICY: BETWEEN TWO CHAIRMANSHIPS

VU T. TRANG

Institute for European Studies, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences

vuthuytrang@yandex.ru

TERSKIKH MIKHAIL ANDREEVICH

Ph.D (political science), Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russia

mikhail.terskikh@gmail.com

DINH M. TUAN

Institute for European Studies – Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences

tuaneu@gmail.com

The chapter examines the ASEAN direction in Vietnam’s foreign policy between its chairmanships in 2010 and 2020 respectively. The international changes that occurred during this period and influenced on ASEAN’s policy (the intensification of rivalry between the great powers, escalation of the South China Sea dispute, the growth of protectionism, restrictionism and nationalism, non-traditional security challenges including climate change, etc.), as well as its Vietnam’s dimension in forming ASEAN’s response, are thoroughly scrutinized. The SRV’s priorities during its 2020 chairmanship – both declared and practical – are studied in detail.

The authors argue that owing to increased competition between the great powers with potentially disturbing implications for Southeast Asia, the on-going Vietnam’s chairmanship becomes a crucial point in ASEAN’s history. Grasping the challenges, the association has to deal with, as the present ASEAN chairman Vietnam offers its ASEAN partners, as well the external powers, an agenda of cooperation with a clear consolidating component.

The novelty of the study stems from a cutting-edge research of Vietnam’s likely policy directions as the present ASEAN chairman, which is based on an analytical interlink between the changes of the international milieu in Southeast Asia between 2010 and 2020, ASEAN’s remedial measures and their Vietnam perspective. In line with this analytical focus, a deep and nuanced assessment of the SRV’s priorities and policy directions as the ASEAN’s 2020 chairmanship is made. Findings on this set of issues add the practical relevance of the study and make it academically unique.

Keywords: Vietnam, ASEAN, South East Asia, Asia Pacific, Indo-Pacific, South China Sea, security, cooperation.

Introduction

The effective chairmanship in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is considered by the leadership of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) as one of the main foreign policy tasks for 2020. The midterm review of the ASEAN Community Vision 2025 and the 25th anniversary of Vietnam’s accession to the Association add urgency to this priority. The reputation aspect also matters – the election of Hanoi to the post of the nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council for 2020-2021 and the SRV’s chairmanship in ASEAN are convincing indicators of an increased role of the state on the regional and the global arena. To examine the ASEAN direction of Vietnam’s policy between the previous (in 2010) and the on-going SRV’s chairmanship in ASEAN becomes a timely and relevant exercise.

The chapter starts from a review of international context in Southeast Asia between 2010 and 2020. Then it turns to examining Vietnam’s contribution to ASEAN’s policy to cope with the emerging challenges. The priorities of Vietnam’s on-going ASEAN chairmanship are considered through the prism of these developments. The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study.

A Decade of Changes

Between two Vietnam’s chairmanships, Southeast Asia has seen profound international changes. In 2010, the region and the world had barely recovered from the global financial crisis. ASEAN’s policy demonstrated that in a critical situation, the ten states prefer to act separately rather than collectively⁴⁷. This, in turn, decreased ASEAN’s ambitions to solidify its status of the driving force of the Asia-Pacific. From the Vietnam perspective, a task to confirm the validity of the Association’s ambitions, as well as to provide ASEAN with a new reputational value, was pressing. On the whole, that task was fulfilled. The main results of Vietnam’s chairmanship included the expansion of the East Asia Summit through the accession of Russia and the United States and the launch of the ADMM Plus format.

Vietnam’s 2010 chairmanship saw Washington’s involvement in the South China Sea issue, including the Sino-American polemics at the ASEAN Regional Forum⁴⁸. These moves were welcomed by Vietnam and a number of ASEAN states seeking the US’ support in opposing the PRC⁴⁹.