International Islamic University Malaysia’s Phar Kim Beng told FMT the idea was not feasible, citing Asean’s composition of vastly different political regimes.
“What makes sense on paper does not necessarily translate into workable military doctrine.
“Different regime types won’t pool their sovereignty together to allow anyone to lead all member states in a uniform manner,” said the IIUM professor of Asean studies.
“He (Mahathir) has confused and conflated strength in numbers with a defence pact. The 11 member states of Asean do not necessarily share common national interests as each of the countries have different political economies and priorities,” said Phar.
Mahathir had called for a common Asean defence and security policy to strengthen the bloc’s ability to deal with powers such as the US and China, saying differing national policies have weakened the bloc’s ability to protect its collective interests.
Responding to a question on whether Asean should adopt a defence framework similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato), Mahathir said greater cooperation on security matters would enable the region to respond more effectively to territorial incursions and geopolitical pressure.
Flawed comparisons
Phar called the comparison between Asean and Nato as flawed and misleading, citing the structural and commitment differences between the two groupings.
He said Nato was a military alliance and said Article 5 of its treaty provides that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, thereby requiring a collective declaration of war by its members.
“Asean, on the other hand, is a political and security community that at best is based on an unclear concept of cooperative security,” he said.
Phar suggested that Asean instead focus on internal balancing and economic reforms to ensure the bloc is resilient against bullying by foreign powers.
“Without a strong and common economic foundation, adversaries can pick member states apart through divide-and-conquer strategies,” he said.
False neutrality
Meanwhile, Universiti Malaya defence analyst Lam Choong Wah said a common Asean defence and security policy was impossible, given the biased stances taken within the bloc on foreign affairs.
“On paper, we have a neutral position in Asean but in practice, some of our member states have already taken sides. If you look at Singapore and the Philippines, they are pro-US whereas Cambodia is pro-China.
“We can’t even resolve our own divisions among members. It would be impossible to implement a common defence policy,” he said.
Lam also drew comparisons with the European Union (EU) and highlighted the challenges it faces despite being a more unified grouping of countries.
“Asean is a very loose coalition, unlike the EU, which has much stronger and more concrete integration among its member states. But even the EU struggles to manage its members,” he said, citing Hungary’s repeated vetoes against stricter sanctions on Russia.
Focus on internal cohesion
Lam added that Asean should focus on building internal cohesion to ensure trust and unity among member states.
“Certain countries in Asean are very easily provoked and persuaded to take sides. If one country takes sides, it would destroy the internal political trust among Asean members.”
He also called for greater internal strategic discussions among members, describing current efforts as insufficient. “We have the Asean defence ministers meeting but this is not enough.”