This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on January 22, 2024 - January 28, 2024

It is hard to mention Gaza and Asean in the same breath. It is as if they are in different worlds.

Asean, of course, does not take a common meaningful stand on any big foreign policy issue. Different member states assume their own positions. As we know, even for issues within Asean, it is a struggle to forge a common stand, as on Myanmar, or with China on the South China Sea.

On Gaza, for Asean as a whole, it is as if it is dynamite well left alone. However, there are issues emanating from what is happening in Gaza that are relevant to Asean pertaining to national and regional interest, observance of international law and, not least, humanity and morality.

Thus, as the conflict in the Middle East widens, particularly with respect to safe passage in the Red Sea, Asean begins to see the threat to world trade and the risk of inflation. Asean is such an economic animal that it is always these factors that drive it most even when, as in Gaza today, there are bigger issues for mankind than just the economy.

We have the FMM (Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers) in Malaysia, for instance, seeking to assuage the concern over impact on world trade and inflation of the situation in the Red Sea, as the Gaza situation escalates and spreads, by saying it would only be marginal. In any case, the FMM soothes, mitigating steps can be taken by nearshoring or friendshoring to secure supply chains.

Further, China is identified in most of Asean as the main market. Alas, the state of the world is such that while already facing some domestic economic problems, China’s economy will be further adversely affected by what is happening in the Red Sea, not to mention at the Lebanon border, possibly Strait of Hormuz, and Iranian response to escalation of conflict in the region.

Nevertheless, holding fast to economic faith, there are reviews of growth forecasts, with sanguine messages like, unless the Middle East conflict spreads and deepens, Gaza in itself does not deeply affect the Asean economy. Never mind the prolonged Israeli bombing and military action there.

However, the short-term cold economic calculation does not take into account events occurring in Gaza that could happen in an Asean context. This comes from aversion in Asean to look far and to look ahead at difficult issues, particularly of a political-security nature.

The first resource Israel denied Gaza with its military action following the Hamas attack on Oct 7 last year was energy supply. Obviously strategic and immediate. Asean, meanwhile, is looking at the regional energy grid as part of its MPAC45 (Master Plan on Asean Connectivity into 2045), with green energy seabed supply cables already being planned for wind power from Vietnam to Singapore, hydropower from Sarawak to Singapore, and many other connections that will surely be worked on.

To the extent they will be on the seabed of the South China Sea, like the 1,000km line from Vietnam to Singapore, quite obviously there is a need to establish energy security by ensuring South China Sea disputes are resolved or come under a guaranteed peaceful management system. Since Asean is so driven only by economic considerations, this is one risk of existential threat which it might want to think about, as a group, to resolve.

Similarly, the choke points in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and particularly the Bab-el-Mandeb that have been highlighted by the Houthi attack on shipping in support of their call for a ceasefire in Gaza, should remind Asean of the Strait of Malacca through to the South China Sea, carrying cargo ranging in volume from 20% to 33% of world trade, far more than the 12% through the Red Sea.

Asean member state Singapore, always mindful of its economic dependence on peaceful commercial navigation, is part of the US-led Red Sea coalition countering Houthi activities. As disclosed to its parliament, Singapore is providing a team to support information-sharing, operational plans and naval intelligence.

Such a US-led flotilla in the Asean region would be something too late if designed to counter China’s actions in the South China Sea, or anywhere else. There would not be that David and Goliath dimension currently informing the situation in the Red Sea. It would be a more serious affair between the two leading powers in the world.

It is imperative therefore that a legally binding regime is established in the South China Sea beyond the possibility of misconstruction. It has been over 20 years since the code of conduct was first mooted and the fact that no major untoward incident has occurred should not lull Asean into thinking nothing would. US-China rivalry is entering an uncertain phase, what more with a potential Donald Trump administration in America next year.

Nobody thought the Hamas attack on Oct 7 was going to happen. Arab states in the Middle East were busy establishing diplomatic relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords. The Palestinians and their rights were forgotten. Now, of course, there is this bloody reminder at a high cost primarily to Palestinian lives.

The protection of international law is important, especially for the small and less powerful, even if it lacks enforcement capability unless in major situations, such as Gaza today, the UN Security Council is united, which it plainly is not. In a situation involving China and the US, with two veto powers, it is even less likely that the Security Council would be able to act. Nevertheless, if there are legally binding rules in the South China Sea freely agreed upon among states, there is a hurdle of violation and peer pressure.

Moving on to the protection of international law in Gaza, however thin and inadequate, Israel now faces the charge of genocide brought against it by South Africa. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will determine whether or not it is genocide Israel is embarked on in its response to the Oct 7 attack by Hamas. South Africa also seeks from the ICJ a provisional order for a ceasefire.

The fact that Israel appeared before the court to counter the South African case indicates it takes the matter seriously. A finding against it, even if not enforceable, would undermine the credentials of a state founded on the ashes of the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany. Israelis will be smeared and disgraced. International law, not totally without effect.

Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia are among the countries supporting the South African claim of genocide against Israel, with Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim being the most vociferous, calling also for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Other Asean member states are not among them. They are keeping their nose clean by not denying the South African charge like the US and the UK and Germany, but are obviously basing their stand, or lack of it, on their interests, influence of the US or relations with Israel.

However, all Asean member states supported the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution on Dec 12 last year that called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, unconditional release of all hostages and humanitarian access in Gaza. The resounding vote was 153 for, 10 against, with 23 abstentions. This was after, in an earlier UNGA Resolution on Oct 27, the Philippines had abstained and Cambodia was absent.

Even if UNGA Resolutions are non-binding, the vote represents member country policy and, together, world public opinion. The next test will be when, and if, the ICJ delivers a provisional order for a ceasefire. How would Asean member countries respond? Is it too much to expect Asean, as a whole, to issue a statement urging that immediate ceasefire, irrespective of differences of views on Israeli genocide? Can the Asean Caucus at the UN act as one, as it did after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia at the end of 1978 (even when, in effect, protecting the bestial Pol Pot regime).

It would be a huge contradiction if, after voting for the Dec 12 UNGA Resolution, Asean member states do not come out in support of an order by the UN’s highest judicial organ calling for that ceasefire, if one should be made.

Asean must also not forget the principle of self-determination (upon which all its member states base their existence) enshrined in international law and the right of Palestinians to statehood, amid all the butchery and killing that has taken and is taking place. The two-state solution, however difficult and long-forgotten, is the only way forward. Is it too much to expect Asean to state this, preferably in one voice?

The situation in Gaza today is the worst that has happened to the Palestinians since the establishment of Israel in 1948. The Oct 7, 2023, massacre was the worst to Israel since its founding. The mutual hatred is deeply embedded. The heartless Israeli bombing and attack in Gaza with children and women not spared is based on that hatred. The callous Hamas butchery is also founded on that hate.

It is not, however, just a matter of action and reaction. There is a long history to it. There is no moral high ground. What we have seen is, if you treat people like animals, you will get beasts.

What Asean can learn is to ensure civilised behaviour. There are, and have been, situations within member states and in the region where there have been atrocities and lingering memories among victims to exact revenge. There has been the Khmer Rouge Cambodian holocaust. At least two million died in the 1970s.

There are many other examples such as in 1965 in Indonesia, racial riots in Malaysia in 1969, East Timor, and claims and counter-claims of massacre in Mindanao. As we watch the horrendous situation in Gaza today, it is to be hoped that we live and learn.

Yet in Myanmar today, bestial acts against insurrectionists, instead of negotiation, have been going on. There is a civil war in our midst, in Asean’s Myanmar. The treatment of the Rohingya there has also been most appalling. Some celebrate that Asean’s creation has kept the peace in the region. Is there peace for these people? Peace is indivisible.

Things are reportedly turning against the junta in Myanmar. The new prime minister of Thailand is a refreshing change from the previous one. There is an opportunity for Asean to finally act on the restoration of civilian rule. Asean takes too many breaks between summits. There are many meetings but little action on important and urgent issues.

There are also irredentist claims in the region based on race and religion, usually Muslim, like in southern Thailand or Mindanao in the Philippines. There are many presumptions against Muslims, which may have had an impact on how the situation in Gaza is viewed in some Asean member states.

The predisposition to see the Palestinian claim to statehood as a religious conflict between Muslims and Jews has not helped the cause of right to self-determination. Muslims themselves, whether in the Middle East or in Asean, have been guilty of bringing an anti-Jewish dimension to the conflict which has turned to the disadvantage of the Palestinians.

Many Malays in Malaysia make comments on Israel and the Jews that are racist, which are not only wrong on what Palestinian statehood is all about, but also actually stupid in wanting to get into a bigger fight than the Palestinians are already involved in.

Those who are anti-Semitic should go elsewhere with their anti-Jewish baggage and not bring it to the issue of Palestinian rights and statehood. More Arab states after so many years of being anti-Israel were at the point of making peace and establishing diplomatic relations until Oct 7 — the reminder that the issue of Palestine must also be resolved.

Israel itself, of course, uses the charge of anti-Semitism to get away with murder. The moment an anti-Israel position is taken, it immediately becomes an anti-Semitic one. This scares off scores of Western countries and leaders to the point they become nothing but apologists for Israel.

America is the citadel of such dynamic, and of Jewish power for Israel. The Israel Lobby in the US is so strong that it operates almost like a state within a state, documented in studies such as the comprehensive one by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. The question therefore arises as to whether the US can be the honest broker for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

In a US election year, the influence of the Lobby will be such that President Joe Biden cannot afford to antagonise Israel, not Israel America. This is not good news for the people of Gaza still alive who are likely to die, let alone for a state for Palestinians. Assuming Trump comes in, it will be curtains, for he always likes to be with the winners.

If Israel continues to use its preponderant power to get unjust gains, the moral case for the state will disappear. It will be doing a wrong of epic proportions.

One might be reminded of Henry Kissinger’s exasperation with Israel’s violation of the ceasefire after the Ramadan-Yom Kippur War of October 1973, when he mused: “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be anti-Semitic ... any people who have been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong.”

Israel should not expose itself to such stricture at the time of its greatest strength, by forgetting the time when the Jews were victims in Nazi Germany. Being powerful today with full US support is not the licence to act unjustly with impunity, as the Nazis did. It also does not give Israel the right to threaten to bring the whole world down, which is about where the situation in the Middle East is.

The US’ light on the world was already waning even before Gaza. It is now dimmer. The double standard in the speedy reaction to Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago, and the long time it took for the “far too many civilians have died” comment after 25,000 dead and over 100 days of Israeli bombing and bombardment, is so stark. The rules-based world order so much talked about has never been so diminished.

Asean has to deep-dive into the moral and systemic significance of Gaza. It has to relook at assumed moral and systemic certainties in Southeast Asia of that rules-based world order.

Asean also has to scenario-set the consequences of a Trump administration. While already devilishly difficult, it may become impossible to be “equidistant” between the US and China. Being the economic animal that it is, Asean might want to begin by examining the likely consequences of Trump’s promised 10% tariff on all imports, beyond which, if there were to be any retaliation, it would be “an eye for an eye, a tariff for a tariff”.

On Gaza, for Gaza, Asean should stop stuttering and show a greater unity of purpose. Asean should, independent of the US, start advocating what is right and just.

Tan Sri Dr Munir Majid is chairman of CARI Asean Research and Advocacy Munir Majid

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's App Store and Android's Google Play.