ASEAN should learn how to grow up<\/p>\n
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Managing Editor,
\n'Van Zorge Report on Indonesia', Jakarta<\/p>\n
"Ideologies separate us, dreams and anguish bring us
\ntogether."<\/p>\n
These profound words probably encapsulate the fundamental
\nchallenge faced by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\n(ASEAN): A deficiency of a clear sense of purpose, or vision, on
\nwhere the grouping is heading in this age of U.S. hegemony.<\/p>\n
Without the construction of a vivid road map -- a tangible,
\nforeseeable dream -- ASEAN can only hope to teeter along to jeers
\nof growing irreverence.<\/p>\n
Every year in the run-up to major ASEAN meetings, various op-
\neds -- not unlike this one -- emerge, mocking the relevance of
\nthe regional grouping. As ministers of the 10 member states
\ngather in Phnom Penh this week, once again the customary barrage
\nof media sarcasm abounds. After 35 years, the naysayers seem to
\nmultiply faster than the converts.<\/p>\n
The classic list of complaints have only extended as new
\nregional challenges further expose the incapacity of ASEAN. Bold
\ninitiatives, particularly in the socio-political sphere, have
\nonly evolved into lethargic processes that have produced mounds
\nof self-absorbed policy papers shelved in the four walls of the
\nacademia, or worst yet, the bottom drawer of a middle-aged
\nforeign office bureaucrat.<\/p>\n
In a nutshell, ASEAN has failed in three critical veins over
\nthe past decade, which has led to the almost unanimous, albeit
\nsometimes harsh, perception of letdown. The first is the widely
\nheld view that ASEAN could do little when the region was hit with
\na crisis that directly impacted the peoples of the member states:
\nthe economic meltdown of 1997-1998. No perceptible prescription
\nwas forwarded through the ASEAN network during this crisis.<\/p>\n
One can sympathize with the peoples of Southeast Asia who
\nquestion the value of such a pronounced association, if it could
\nnot help itself when it most needed to. Economic initiatives like
\nAFTA have certainly helped invigorate regional trade, but they
\nhave done little to directly touch the lives of the everyday
\nlayman.<\/p>\n
The second is the failure of ASEAN to propagate and defend
\nhumanitarian and democratic values, which at the end of the 20th
\ncentury had become the over-arching political paradigm. Instead
\nof proliferating the democratic ideology, ASEAN became entrenched
\nin its political straitjacket. As the organization celebrated its
\n30th anniversary in 1997, there were just as many authoritarian
\nregimes within its ranks as there were in 1967. Because of the
\nincreasing international focus toward human rights issues, the
\ninclusion of a country like Myanmar became a liability. Here,
\nonce again, ASEAN could not reflect the growing political
\naspirations permeating the region.<\/p>\n
The third letdown is its inability to keep up with the
\nchanging paradigms of international relations. Regional security
\nhad initially been perceived in the context of an armed threat,
\nbut by the early 1990s, there were new, non-traditional forms of
\nthreats -- namely environmental degradation, migrant workers,
\nmaritime piracy and drug smuggling.<\/p>\n
ASEAN's response to these new challenges was mostly
\nreactionary. Not until the mid-1990s was there a serious move to
\ntreat them as real threats. Even then, the decisions taken were
\nusually piecemeal without addressing longer-term solutions or
\neven looking at the root cause of these problems. The low point
\nprobably came as forest fires in Sumatra and Kalimantan created
\none of the region's biggest environmental catastrophes. Haze
\nblanketed most of Singapore, Malaysia and even parts of Thailand.<\/p>\n
These three failures had a profound effect on how the citizens
\nof ASEAN perceived their grouping. Little confidence was retained
\nby an association which was seen as lacking in economic,
\npolitical and social astuteness.<\/p>\n
To be fair to ASEAN, people were probably expecting too much
\nfrom an association which was, frankly speaking, formed to check
\nexpansionist tendencies, avert interstate conflict and check the
\nspread of communism. If the assessment is limited to these goals
\nalone, than ASEAN has certainly fulfilled its objectives. But a
\n30-year-old should not aspire to the goals and standards of a 15-
\nyear-old. Likewise, ASEAN should learn to grow up and expound
\nhigher objectives.<\/p>\n
The key words for the future is to "reinvigorate" and provide
\na "sense of purpose" for ASEAN by quantifying a set of
\nconceptual, yet tangible, goals that the organization must aspire
\nto within the next two decades.<\/p>\n
Qualified officials and academics are more equipped to detail
\nthe precepts needed in the blueprint to achieving these goals,
\nbut the most important which should be urged is for ASEAN to move
\naway from its conservatism, without wholly discarding proven ways
\nand means that have served it well in the past. That is to say
\nthat debates in the future should not be encumbered by rather
\n"ideological" debates on issues such as non-intervention. This
\nblueprint must provide the architectural style and floor plans
\nfor the edifice that needs to be constructed. The wallpaper motif
\ncan be debated upon later.<\/p>\n
Already, plans are afoot on drafting a proposal which would
\nhelp drive the ASEAN region to become some form of economic
\ncommon market or community. Such a goal is highly conceivable
\ngiven that under the umbrella of AFTA and APEC, much of the
\nnecessary policy-oriented commitments have already been made.<\/p>\n
What has only been discussed in limited circles are
\nsuggestions that a political-security community, to complement
\nthe economic one, also be introduced. The political commitment
\nfor such an endeavor would thrust a greater purpose into the life
\nof ASEAN, and allow the some 500 million people in the region to
\nhave a clear marker to judge the grouping's progress. The
\ndrafting of such a political community would also allow ASEAN to
\nintrospect its future paradigms amid a world that is rapidly
\nchanging.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has a significant role to play, given its diplomatic
\ntact, political clout and the fact that it will host the ASEAN
\nSummit later in the year. For most of the past six years, Jakarta
\nhas remained aloof in playing a leadership role in the region.<\/p>\n
With relative stability returning at home, it may be time for
\nIndonesia to start showing the natural leadership qualities it
\nhas flaunted in the past. Indonesia would also be best placed and
\nmost acceptable in taking the first sensitive steps in
\nrecommending this proposal.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asean-should-learn-how-to-grow-up-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}