key: cord-0793922-4her1x42
authors: Katsumata, Hiro
title: ASEAN’s Diplomatic Tasks During the Pandemic
date: 2021-08-31
journal: East Asia (Piscataway)
DOI: 10.1007/s12140-021-09366-x
sha: d1697ce9a059eae9844652a6e2a0eac5bd85eccb
doc_id: 793922
cord_uid: 4her1x42

What are the implications of COVID-19 for the diplomacy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? What kinds of diplomatic tasks has the pandemic imposed on ASEAN, and in what way has the Southeast Asian association handled them? ASEAN’s most fundamental diplomatic task has of course been to continue building ASEAN communities, but the ability of the association of minor powers in Southeast Asia is limited. Hence, it can be said that ASEAN’s most important diplomatic task has been to maintain favorable relations with external powers, in particular, with China and the United States. The present study argues that ASEAN has managed to maintain favorable relations with and receive support from both of these external powers by conducting “equidistant diplomacy” with them. In concrete terms, it has fostered favorable relations with China. Yet, without relying excessively on Beijing, it made sure to foster such relations with the United States as well, thereby striking a reasonable balance between these two external powers.

Southeast Asia has been badly affected by the global spread of COVID-19. Due to its geographical proximity and dense links to China, it was the first region outside China to be hit by the pandemic. The first confirmed case outside China was recorded in Thailand on 13 January 2020 [54] , and the first COVID-19 death outside China was identified in the Philippines on 2 February 2020 [17] . Since then, the virus rapidly spread across the entire Southeast Asian region, and by the end of March, all ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had been hit by the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),

The most fundamental diplomatic task COVID-19 has imposed on ASEAN is to continue building ASEAN communities. The pandemic has made ASEAN community building difficult by presenting serious challenges to the three communities: the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). First, by threatening the well-being of individuals, it has presented a considerable challenge to the APSC. Since the very beginning of the planning for a security community in the early 2000s, ASEAN has subscribed to the principle of "comprehensive security" [2] , which "goes beyond the requirements of traditional security … [and] takes into account non-traditional aspects vital to regional and national resilience" [4: 9] . In this respect, not only the military security of territorial states but also the well-being of individuals matters in the APSC.

Next, by limiting the movement of goods, services, and workers within and across national boundaries, COVID-19 has posed a severe challenge to the AEC. The free movement of these elements is an integral component of the AEC, in which the formation of a single market and production base in Southeast Asia has been sought for a long time [3] . Importantly, COVID-19 has forced some ASEAN members to stop receiving manual and domestic workers from other members, thereby causing severe economic damage to both parties. Although the international movement of skilled workers is featured in the AEC, that of manual and domestic workers is also essential for many of the ASEAN members.

Finally, and perhaps most fundamentally, as a new communicable disease, COVID-19 has undoubtedly posed a direct challenge to the ASCC, the core components of which include the enhancement of "regional preparedness and capacity through integrated approaches to prevention, surveillance and timely response to communicable and emerging infectious diseases" [14: 21-22] . The spread of COVID-19 in 2020 came as a surprise, as few in Southeast Asia had anticipated the sudden spread of a new communicable disease. When the ASEAN members drafted a new "blueprint" and "scorecard" for the ASCC in 2015/2016, what they had in mind as serious communicable and infectious diseases were malaria, rabies, dengue, HIV, and tuberculosis [14: 21-23, 15: 2] . However, COVID-19 has turned out to be one of the most serious communicable diseases in history, prompting them to strengthen their community-building efforts.

Since it is little more than an association of minor powers in Southeast Asia, ASEAN's ability to address these challenges is limited, but its members have at least managed to maintain their unity in addressing the COVID-19 crisis. As early as mid-February, they "emphasize[d] the importance of ASEAN solidarity … in facing the outbreak of the COVID-19 and similar challenges" [8] . At their special summit on COVID-19 in April 2020, they pledged to "remain united and vigilant against COVID-19 … while sustaining ASEAN Community building momentum", and agreed to "strengthen public health cooperation measures to contain the pandemic" and to "intensify cooperation for adequate provision of medicines, essential medical supplies and equipment" [9] . In this meeting, they also decided to establish the COVID-19 ASEAN Response Fund, and in February 2021, they agreed to use a large portion of the funds to buy vaccines [51] . To be sure, there have been some minor instances in which the ASEAN members failed to make their best efforts to maintain their unity. For example, in August 2020 when the number of confirmed cases in the Philippines increased rapidly and overtook that in Indonesia, Manila emphasized that the number increased simply because it had conducted as much as three times more testing than Jakarta had done [32] . By doing so, it effectively stated that Indonesia continued to be the country with the highest number of cases in Southeast Asia. Yet, overall, it is fair to say that the members have upheld the spirit of ASEAN unity during the pandemic.

This of course does not mean that ASEAN's response to COVID-19 has been sufficient, and two issues should be mentioned here. The first issue concerns the treatment of human rights on the part of some of the association's members. In one way or another, most of the governments in Southeast Asia have taken emergency measures against COVID-19, thereby strengthening the control of their domestic society. In some cases, this has led to the violation of human rights, according to some activists and experts [24, 27, 29] . The second issue concerns the Southeast Asian association's relations with external powers. Given the limited resources and capabilities its members have, this association has had to seek support from external powers. The status of the COVID-19 ASEAN Response Fund is illustrative: by February 2021, it had received more than 15 million US dollars, but this amount includes support from external powers [51] . This is hardly new, in that ASEAN also sought support from external powers when it institutionalized regional measures to deal with communicable and infectious diseases in the aftermath of the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 [18] . However, in terms of its external relations, COVID-19 has given a particular task to ASEAN, which will be discussed next.

In terms of ASEAN's external relations, the most important diplomatic task COVID-19 has imposed on the association is to maintain favorable relations with both China and the United States -the two external powers from which the Southeast Asian association has to seek support. The pandemic has made the management of ASEAN's external relations difficult by instigating a new series of diplomatic conflicts between Beijing and Washington. Indeed, a major difference between SARS and COVID-19 is that, unlike the former, the latter has instigated a new series of diplomatic conflicts between these two external powers, leading some observers to describe their relations in terms of a "tragedy" or "new Cold War" [21, 42, 47] .

While various difficulties existed between China and the United States prior to the spread of COVID-19 in 2020, the pandemic gradually instigated a new series of diplomatic conflicts between them. In January 2020, the attitude of Washington was by no means offensive. President Trump even expressed his gratitude for China's effort to deal with COVID-19, tweeting that "China [had] been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus" and "on behalf of the American People, [he wanted] to thank President Xi" [44] . However, Washington's attitude changed, as the virus spread across the country and beyond. By March, President Trump and several other US politicians had begun to call COVID-19 the "China virus" or "Wuhan virus." Beijing gave a fierce response, condemning the "despicable practice of individual US politicians eagerly stigmatizing China and Wuhan" [45] .

Since spring, Washington has held the "Chinese Communist Party accountable for the Covid-19 pandemic," as the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Robert O'Brien, acknowledges [37: 3] . In May, President Trump went as far as to state that the world suffered as a "result of the malfeasance of the Chinese government," and that "China's cover-up of the Wuhan virus allowed the disease to spread all over the world, instigating a global pandemic" [52] . Beijing's defense against a series of US attacks was based on the position that the WHO and the international community had "expressed clear objection to associating a virus with a specific country or region and acts of stigmatization" [19] . President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the WHO in May and officially submitted a notice of withdrawal to the United Nations (UN) Secretary General in July, in the belief that China had "total control" over the organization [52] . In September, at the UN General Assembly, he openly accused China and the WHO of disseminating false information on the possibility of the human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 [53] . Beijing rejected what it sees as a "baseless accusation" against it, and instead accused the United States of spreading "political virus" at the UN [20] .

To be sure, ASEAN's diplomatic partners are not limited to China and the United States, but the series of diplomatic conflicts described above made it more difficult for the Southeast Asian association to manage its relations with these two than with its other partners, such as Japan and Australia. Unsurprisingly, in their analyses of ASEAN's external relations during the pandemic, most experts seem to focus on the association's relations with China and the United States. In fact, in one way or another, most of them have shown that ASEAN has managed to maintain favorable relations with both of these external powers [46, 49, 50] . The obvious question here is in what way the association has managed to do so.

Against the background of the series of diplomatic conflicts between Beijing and Washington, ASEAN has managed to maintain favorable relations with and receive support from both of these external powers by conducting "equidistant diplomacy" with them, without becoming too remote from or too close to either one of them. In concrete terms, it has fostered favorable relations with China. Yet, without relying excessively on Beijing, it made sure to foster such relations with the United States as well, thereby striking a reasonable balance between these two external powers. In this way, it has reaped benefits from its favorable relations with each of them and received as much support as possible from each of them to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. 1 On the one hand, it has responded positively to the so-called "mask diplomacy" of China, thereby receiving as much support as possible from the country. From the beginning of the crisis, the Southeast Asian association has carefully avoided pointing the finger at Beijing and has instead shown solidarity with it, on the basis of the recognition that the two parties are "in the same boat" when it comes to regional affairs [26] . As early as 20 February 2020, in Vientiane, the association held a special meeting of foreign ministers with China on COVID-19 and agreed to strengthen 1 A few authors have argued that ASEAN members have maintained equidistant diplomatic relations with external powers. For example, Evan Laksmana has used the notion of "pragmatic equidistance" to understand Indonesia's relations with both Beijing and Washington [31] . Oh Ei Sun and David Han have argued that Malaysia has sought to build equidistant relations with both China and the United States [39] . With Shingo Nagata, the present author has maintained that, in its dealings with China's Belt and Road Initiative, ASEAN has conducted equidistant diplomacy with Beijing and Washington [28] . cooperation in a "comprehensive and effective manner" [11] . At a summit meeting with China in November, the association welcomed Beijing's support for various public sector programs and its provision of medical supplies and equipment to Southeast Asia, and also expressed appreciation for Beijing's commitment to providing COVID-19 vaccine to Southeast Asia on a priority basis once it is developed [10] . All these are understandable, given that the Southeast Asian nations have seen China as their best opportunity for post-COVID-19 economic recovery [49] . In fact, experts who have examined ASEAN's relations with China and the United States amid the COVID-19 crisis seem to share the view that the relevance of the former has become more salient than that of the latter [34, 36, 46, 48, 49] .

Still, on the other hand, ASEAN has cautiously avoided becoming over-dependent on China, and cleverly strengthened its ties to the United States as well, thereby receiving a large amount of economic aid and other forms of assistance from Washington. Most remarkably, it has received various forms of support for capacity building, on the basis of the existing arrangements not only at the official but also at the grass-roots level, which have been built through the two parties' favorable relations over the last several decades -for example, arrangements between hospitals in Southeast Asia and universities in the United States. Indeed, in their special meeting of foreign ministers in April 2020, the two parties highlighted the importance of their "decades-long collaboration in supporting international cooperation … to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious diseases" [12 also see 13] . ASEAN has put importance on Washington's Health Futures initiative, announced by Secretary of State Michael Pompeo during this ministerial meeting to "enhance [its] efforts in health security through research, public health, and training the next generation of ASEAN health professionals" [41 also see 35] . It has continued to strengthen its relations with the United States under the Biden administration since 2021, jointly highlighting with this administration the "importance of collaboration towards post COVID-19 recovery" [16] .

The diplomatic practice described above can be regarded as ASEAN's modus operandi. For the association of minor powers in Southeast Asia, the proper management of its relations with China and the United States through the exercise of equidistant diplomacy has always been crucial in the post-Cold War Asia-Pacific. Thus, for example, in response to China's Belt and Road Initiative since the mid-2010s, while committing itself to Beijing's initiative, this association has cleverly strengthened its economic and security relations with the United States [28] . The statement that ASEAN commonly conducts equidistant diplomacy largely resonates with the view that its members commonly implement the strategy of hedging. However, the notion of equidistant diplomacy and that of hedging capture different meanings. The former applies to the collective practice of ASEAN as a whole. The ASEAN members deal with many issues collectively, and thus their association acts as a single entity on many occasions -for example, signing agreements or concluding partnerships with various external powers. The long-term trend in its external relations can best be encapsulated in the notion of equidistant diplomacy. The latter is more useful for capturing the strategies of individual members. Each member has its own policies toward China and the United States, putting more emphasis on one over the other. The extent to which each member hedges against the deterioration of its relations with external powers also differs. Some members are "heavy hedgers," while others are "light hedgers" [30] . 2

What should ASEAN do in a post-COVID-19 era? In short, the Southeast Asian association should articulate its own vision for an Asia-Pacific regional order, bearing in mind that it will probably become harder for this association to secure its centrality to Asia-Pacific regional cooperation in a post-COVID-19 era. The ultimate aim of ASEAN diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific is to secure the association's centrality to regional cooperation there, founded on its mega-regional institutions such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conference, East Asia Summit, and ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus. 3 Equidistant diplomacy contributes to the achievement of this aim, to the extent that it concerns the avoidance of overdependence on a particular external power.

In a post-COVID-19 era, the maintenance of ASEAN's centrality will probably become harder partly due to some well-known developments, such as the growing influence of China and long-term economic and social damage to ASEAN caused by the spread of the virus. Yet it will also become harder due to an unprecedented development, namely, the partial replacement of onsite meetings with online ones through the advancement of digital diplomacy, which ironically is considered to favor small and developing nations by giving more opportunities for such nations to be represented and heard [see 23, 43: 82] . Onsite meetings of the mega-regional institutions mentioned above have more symbolic value than online ones, in that the former essentially signify ASEAN's centrality to Asia-Pacific regional cooperation. They are held in the Southeast Asian region throughout the year, always serving as an occasion in which representatives of major powers travel to this region to attend an event hosted by an association of minor powers there. These representatives include not only desk officers and senior officials but also ministers and heads of states. Nevertheless, since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis in early 2020, almost all the meetings have been held online. Even in a post-COVID-19 era, some of the meetings will likely be held online while many others will likely be a hybrid of onsite and online meetings. 4 This is because COVID-19 has taught the utility of digital tools to many across the world, including those in governments and international organizations in the Asia-Pacific. According to the DiploFoundation, online meetings are no longer seen as a poor substitute for onsite meetings, but as an indispensable component of global governance [22] . 2 A majority of existing studies on hedging in Southeast Asia concentrate on the strategies of individual ASEAN members [for a review, see 25: 381-388]. 3 Few key declarations issued by ASEAN have failed to highlight the need to secure the association's centrality to Asia-Pacific regional cooperation see [5, 6] . 4 Experts and practitioners identified a hybrid of onsite and online meetings as a component of future diplomatic encounters, in the "Future of Meetings" conference organized by the DiploFoundation and the Geneva Internet Platform in May 2020 [23] . This means that ASEAN must make very serious efforts to secure its centrality to Asia-Pacific regional cooperation in a post-COVID-19 era. ASEAN is little more than an association of minor powers with insufficient material capabilities, and the exercise of hegemonic leadership is not an option for it. Therefore, it should exercise ideational leadership by articulating its own vision for an Asia-Pacific regional order. The conceptualization in 2019 of an "ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific" can be considered a positive development in this respect. This outlook aims to "generate momentum for building strategic trust and win-win cooperation in the region" [7] and is thus in line with a set of ASEAN's cooperative norms, enshrined in its Treaty of Amity and Cooperation -the treaty to which most of the major powers in the Asia-Pacific have subscribed [1] . It is more accommodative, and hence must be more acceptable to most countries in the Asia-Pacific than the "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" concept promoted by the United States and its allies is. The articulation of a vision for an Asia-Pacific regional order which is acceptable to many must be a prerequisite for the Southeast Asian association to establish its mega-regional presence in a post-COVID-19 era.

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation

ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action. Vientiane

Vientiane Action Programme. Vientiane

ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. Cha-am

Bali Declaration on ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations

ASEAN Leaders' Declaration on the 50th Anniversary of ASEAN. Manila

ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific

Chairman's Statement on ASEAN Collective Response to the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease

Declaration of the Special ASEAN Summit on Coronavirus Disease

Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China (2020)

Statement of the Special ASEAN-China Foreign Ministers' Meeting on the Coronavirus Disease

Co-Chairs' Statement of the Special ASEAN-United States Foreign Ministers' Meeting on Coronavirus Disease

Joint Statement: Special Video Conference of Health Ministers of ASEAN and the United States in Enhancing Cooperation on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) Response. Online

2015 ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Scorecard. Jakarta

ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint 2025

ASEAN, United States to advance strategic partnership

Coronavirus: First death outside China reported in Philippines

Non-traditional security and infectious diseases in ASEAN: Going beyond the rhetoric of securitization to deeper institutionalization

Beijing opposes Trump's stigmatization of COVID-19 as "kung flu

China rejects "baseless accusations," opposes "political virus

A modern tragedy? COVID-19 and US-China relations. Brookings Institution

COVID-19 and diplomacy

The future of meetings conference: Summary report

ASEAN: Adopt human rights based approach to comprehensive recovery framework on COVID-19

The concept of hedging and its application to Southeast Asia: A critique and a proposal for a modified conceptual and methodological framework

Comments. ChinaFile conversation: How is the coronavirus outbreak affecting China's relations with its Asian neighbors? Center on US-China Relations

4 ASEAN states abusing COVID-19 emergency powers. The Diplomat

ASEAN and the BRI: The utility of equidistant diplomacy with China and the US

Introduction: COVID-19 and authoritarian creep in South and Southeast Asia

Hedging in post-pandemic Asia: What, how, and why? Asian Forum: Special Forum. Asian Institute for Policy Studies

Pragmatic equidistance: How Indonesia manages its great power relations

Palace won't accept Ph has more COVID-19 cases than Indonesia, highest in ASEAN

Data science project reveals Indonesia Covid-19 death toll three times higher than official tally

What's past is prologue: The geopolitical significance of Covid-19 for Southeast Asia. The New Normal in Asia Series

ASEAN-US Ministerial Meeting Held Virtually. Hanoi

Koronakade chugoku-izon tsuyomaru ASEAN [ASEAN's increasing dependence on China amid the COVID-19 crisis

Introduction

Economic outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2020 -update: Meeting the challenges of COVID-19

Malaysia's relations with the major powers: China and the United States. Malaysia Update. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies

Experts doubt low coronavirus counts of some Southeast Asian countries. Voice of America

The United States and ASEAN are partnering to defeat COVID-19, build long-term resilience, and support economic recovery. Press Statement

COVID-19 and the reification of the US-China "Cold War

The benefits and risks of digital diplomacy

Trump: U.S. appreciates China's "efforts and transparency" on coronavirus. Washington, D.C

Politicians' use of "Wuhan virus" starts a debate health experts wanted to avoid

COVID-19 is increasing strategic uncertainty in Southeast Asia

Dangerous dynamic: Coronavirus threatens new

The security and diplomatic dimensions of COVID-19: The view from ASEAN. International Information Network Analysis. Sasakawa Peace Foundation. Tokyo

US-China rivalry after COVID-19: Clues and early indications from Southeast Asia. Brookings Institution

ASEAN-no koronaka-eno taio

ASEAN to allocate $10.5m from response fund to buy COVID-19 vaccines

Remarks by President Trump on actions against China

Remarks by President Trump to the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly

Timeline COVID-19