SEA SBQ How far do sources A through E show that ASEAN was largely responsible for ending Vietnams

occupation of Cambodia? The hypothesis that ASEAN was largely responsible for ending Vietnams occupation of Cambodia is supported by sources A, C and D while sources B and E challenge the hypothesis. That ASEAN was largely responsible for ending Vietnams occupation of Cambodia can be defined as ASEAN playing a major role in the end of Vietnams occupation of Cambodia. Source A states that ASEAN was regularly able to increase the votes against the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. Hence ASEANs ability to mobilize more support in the United Nations shows that it had a role to play in the ending of Vietnams occupation in Cambodia by rallying support for it. Furthermore, it is to be noted that as from contextual knowledge, communist countries such as Russia and China also supported ASEANs stand in ending the occupation of Vietnam, which provided strength to ASEANS role. The source provides a neutral perspective that is consistent with Source B on the concept of ZOPFAN in 1971, which is a commitment to the inviolable sovereignty of the nation-state. The credibility of this perspective is also further supported by the fact that provenance is Singapores Foreign Minister who would have a representative stand on the situation of the conflict at that time given that Singapore was one of the five members in ASEAN. Hence Source A provides a strong argument to the hypothesis that ASEAN played a major role in the Vietnams occupation of Cambodia. Source A is also supported by Source C and D which both show ASEAN gaining support from major countries such as Russia and China and eventually ending Vietnams occupation of Cambodia. This is shown in Source C stating that the ASEAN led the diplomatic opposition to Vietnams moves in Cambodia with Source D supporting this in saying that ASEAN called for the withdrawal of Hanoi troops in Cambodia. Source C also says that ASEAN took was helped by a growing rapprochement between Beijing and Moscow with Source D again backing this by saying that ASEAN saw this as a useful cause to promote themselves on the world stage suggesting that ASEAN was able to garner global attention on the issue such that it would play a key role in Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia. However, there are limitations to the credibility of Source C. Given that it is written in 2006, the source might not be current in providing reliable information about the situation at the point in time. By cross-referencing Source C to Source E, Indonesias leadership as stated in Source C, did not help ASEAN in ending Vietnams occupation but rather created a dilemma as stated in Source E for ASEAN, since other nations like Thailand expressed that the interests of ASEAN could not be put above the nations own interests. Thus both sources are conflicting and there is a lack of their credibility.

Source B does not support the hypothesis in stating that ASEAN was too weak to maintain the vision of ZOPFAN against the backdrop of the Cambodian invasion by Vietnam hence making it unable to provide any credible deterrent to possible further Soviet-backed Vietnamese aggression and also Thailand became highly dependent on Chinese and American promises of military aid against any Vietnamese aggression. Source E strengthens the argument provided in Source B of the disagreements between member nations hence showing that while ASEAN did indeed have a role to play in ending the conflict, its ability to maintain and play a major role was limited, given that member nations within ASEAN were factionalized. In conclusion, the sources that do not support the hypothesis are preferred over the sources that support the hypothesis due to the questions about reliability regarding the sources that support, and also that they do not accurately represent the entire situation and ASEANs role to play in the issue. Hence, an alternative hypothesis would be that ASEAN played a limited role in the ending of Vietnams occupation of Cambodia.