ASEAN must take a more proactive approach<\/p>\n
By Bilson Kurus<\/p>\n
If ASEAN does not take a more proactive approach to
\ninternational affairs, it faces a difficult future.<\/p>\n
If there is to be a concise phrase which would arguably serve
\nboth as a critique of and a challenge for ASEAN as it heads
\ntowards the 21st century, it must be: \"Lead, follow or
\nget out of the way\". Too strong a statement perhaps, but fitting
\nnonetheless.<\/p>\n
Since its inception in 1967, the performance of ASEAN as a
\nregional organization can best be described as that of a follower
\nor, perhaps a better term, a reactor. Notwithstanding glowing
\naccolades of it as a shining example of Third World cooperation,
\none would be hard pressed to find instances where ASEAN had taken
\nsteps or measures ahead of or in anticipation of disruptive
\ndevelopments. Its successes in the diplomatic and political
\narena, have by and large been the result of its reactions to
\nsometimes traumatic events that posed real and potential
\nchallenges to the association's and its individual members' well-
\nbeing.<\/p>\n
Consider what is commonly viewed as the single most unifying
\nfactor of ASEAN in the 1980s -- the Cambodian conflict. ASEAN's
\ncohesion vis-a-vis Vietnam (now a fellow member) materialized
\nafter the latter invaded Cambodia. Even then, the unity of the
\nmembers was tested and even frayed on more than one occasion as
\nthe member states reacted in a manner consistent with their
\nrespective perceptions of national interest.<\/p>\n
A more current example is ASEAN's off-again-on-again approach
\nto its publicly stated goal of engendering closer intra-ASEAN
\neconomic relations. The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA),
\nASEAN's most promising economic initiative to date, illustrates
\nthe proclivity of ASEAN to react to external impetuses, rather
\nthan generating its own internal momentum. ASEAN's recent about-
\nturn on the implementation period for AFTA only too clearly
\nillustrates the appearance of ASEAN as an organization that
\nseemingly depends on external stimuli to direct its course.<\/p>\n
No doubt, an argument can and will be made that it is
\nprecisely this lack of a structured approach which has helped to
\nensure the viability and utility of ASEAN to its member states.
\nThat to have done otherwise is not only impractical but, more
\nimportant, asking too much of an organization that has to find an
\noptimum balance gradually, while in a sea of embedded
\ndifferences.<\/p>\n
Be that as it may, herein lies ASEAN's challenge. Will ASEAN
\ncontinue to be well served by its wait and respond approach? Will
\nthis modus operandi remain relevant and viable in the uncertain
\nfuture that will be the 21st century?<\/p>\n
Whether these questions are answered is a moot point. Whatever
\nit is, the evolving regional and global environments will most
\nlikely concrete the contextual imperatives of these questions.
\nThe real issue is where will ASEAN then stand?<\/p>\n
The likely scenarios are certainly complex and wide open to
\nconjecture. Still, \"lead, follow or get out of the way\" is one
\nphrase that perhaps best captures the range of possibilities.
\nASEAN can either take bold steps towards shaping its own destiny,
\ncontinue to react to external impetuses, or fade into the
\nbackground of organizational irrelevance.<\/p>\n
The first scenario will require ASEAN to take the lead in
\ninitiatives that shape its viability and destiny instead of
\nperpetually reacting and responding to external events and
\nimpetuses. Among other things, this will mean ASEAN member states
\nneeding to be more assertive in their collective role to pilot,
\nor at least co-pilot, the destiny of Southeast Asia in
\nparticular, and the Asia-Pacific in general. The fact that all 10
\nSoutheast Asian countries will soon be part of the ASEAN family
\nonly serves to underline both the urgency and dynamics of this
\nchallenge.<\/p>\n
This would, of course, mean that ASEAN as an organization
\nbecomes more professional, streamlined and structured. In this
\nrespect, the member states need not turn to the vague ideals of
\nregional integration for inspiration. A realization that their
\ncollective, and more important, individual national well-beings
\nwill depend on continued peace and stability in the region,
\nshould be reason enough.<\/p>\n
The second scenario is obviously for ASEAN to maintain the
\nstatus quo. It can remain in a perpetual mode of reacting and
\nresponding to external events impacting on the regional order. If
\nit chooses to stay with this course, then ASEAN may have to come
\nto terms with continually having to make decisions quickly in a
\ndynamic regional and global environment. Unfortunately, with its
\ncurrent approach of muddling through in sorting out differences
\nand arriving at mutually agreed positions, ASEAN runs the real
\ndanger of being overtaken by developments beyond its control.<\/p>\n
There is, of course, a third scenario -- \"to get out of the
\nway\". In this instance, ASEAN might slowly become irrelevant and
\neventually cease to function in any meaningful manner. A series
\nof failures or indecisiveness could conceivably bring ASEAN to
\nthis state as the slow but continual breach to its cohesiveness
\nand unity ultimately leads individual members to go it alone, or
\nto look elsewhere for answers to their problems and national
\naspirations. ASEAN may go this course if it chooses to remain
\nwithin its own cocoon and watches the world go by.<\/p>\n
While this scenario is certainly an extreme one, it is not
\nentirely farfetched. If ASEAN fails to respond appropriately or
\nsatisfactorily to the countervailing current of diverging
\nnational interests amidst the continuous dynamics of an ever-
\nchanging regional and global reality, then its cocoon of
\nfamiliarity could turn out to be its vehicle to irrelevance.<\/p>\n
These scenarios certainly do not need to be. ASEAN need not be
\nlocked into any one particular eventuality and, it would be
\npremature and indeed unwise to ascribe death to an organization
\nthat has essentiality stood the test of time. Still, a changing
\nregional and global environment is a double-edged sword: It can
\neither serve as an obstacle or as a new opportunity for ASEAN to
\ndefine itself to its member states and the world. That is the
\nchallenge for ASEAN as it moves towards the new millennium.<\/p>\n
Dr. Bilson Kurus is a Visiting Research Associate with the
\nInstitute for Development Studies, Sabah, Malaysia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asean-must-take-a-more-proactive-approach-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}