On July 22, US State Secretary Hillary Clinton officially signed Asean's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Phuket, Thailand.

The treaty, first formulated and adopted by Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines in 1976, requires its signatories, inter alia, to settle inter-state disputes or conflicts peacefully and not to "interfere" with the "internal affairs" of one another.

Other extra-regional powers that have signed the treaty include China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, France and the United Kingdom.

Why has it taken the US so long to sign the treaty? What are the pros and cons for the US to finally sign the treaty? Are there any unintended implications or repercussions?

Senior Fellow of UKM's Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS) Prof Dr Lee Poh Ping shares his observations with Malaysiakini .

Malaysiakini: In the recent meeting of the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) held in Phuket, the US signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976). Why has the US taken so long to sign the treaty? What has made US change its mind now?

prof lee poh ping Lee: I think the US has come to the realisation that Southeast Asia or Asean has been neglected. In the process, the US has discovered that China has been making good headway in cultivating Asean.

To counter this, the US has to upgrade its relations with Asean and one way to do this is to sign the TAC.

Also, the US has realised that its original reservations, two of which are that it will affect agreements with its security partners in Asia and that it will constrain its freedom to act against Myanmar (Burma), about signing the TAC are no longer applicable.

Its three main security partners, Japan, South Korea and Australia, in Asia are already signatories to the TAC. Moreover, Australia was still able to impose sanctions against Myanmar during the 2007 crackdown on dissidents by the military regime. This was after Australia had signed the TAC.

An intriguing question that crops up is whether the East Asia Summit can deny US participation if the US decides to join. After all, the EAS imposes three conditions for membership. They are that a prospective member has to be a dialogue partner, has significant economic relations with Asean and is a signatory to the TAC. The US has now fulfilled the third condition.

In your observation, will the US Congress ratify the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which has now been signed by the Obama administration? If the Congress refuses to ratify it, what would be implications or repercussions for the credibility of the United States as well as US-Asean relations?

Hillary Clinton has said that the US signing of the TAC is an executive agreement that need not be ratified by the Senate. The US has made many such executive agreements before. The Senate can object that the TAC is a treaty and therefore needs the 'advice and consent' of the Senate.

However I think it likely that the administration must have some agreement with Congress to allow the administration to treat it as an executive agreement.

One of the stated and major principles of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976) is the non-interference of the signatories into the "domestic affairs" of one another. By signing the treaty, does the US not contradict one of the cornerstones of its foreign policy, namely the worldwide promotion of what it conceptualises or articulates as universal human rights and liberal democracy? For example, on what new premise can now US criticise and takes action against the ruling regime in Burma for its policies and measures that are said to be a gross violation of human rights as well as values of liberal democracy?

I don't think the US will allow the TAC to come in the way of it pursuing its national interests in Southeast Asia. If it decides that stern action is needed against Myanmar it will find some ingenious legal way to go round the TAC.

In your observation, would the US continue to champion universal human rights and values of liberal democracy after it has now signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation? If yes, then through what ways and means?

I don't think the US will allow the TAC to affect its championship of human rights. Human rights promotion has always at least in theory constitute an important policy plank of US foreign policy though its implementation has beeen selective in many cases.

The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation also stated that inter-state disputes should be settled through peaceful or pacific means. By signing the treaty, does the US signal its intention to downsize its security presence in the Southeast Asian region? If not, does it not mean that there is now a serious and obvious contradiction between its diplomatic needs and security concerns?

I do not think the US will be downsizing its security presence in Southeast Asia as a result of TAC. The TAC takes the high moral ground that disputes in Southeast Asia should be resolved peacefully, and rightly so.

I cannot imagine however that if a Southeast Asian country to which the US is militarily committedd to defend were to be attacked by an aggressor, the US will not help it militarily because of the TAC.