Looking for common values, a community driven ASEAN<\/p>\n
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Jakarta<\/p>\n
A group of people with a common characteristic, or interests
\nliving together within a larger society. That is Merriam
\nWebster's definition of \"community\".<\/p>\n
After four decades of cooperation, at least four Declarations,
\ntwo Concords, two Treaties, one Protocol, a Vision Statement and
\ncountless agreements, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\n(ASEAN) now says it wants to establish itself into a \"community\".<\/p>\n
The instruments towards forming an ASEAN Community -- both
\neconomic and political -- were high on the agenda of ministerial
\nand summit meetings over the past two years. Hundreds of manpower
\nhours were consumed as officials and regional think tanks
\nwrestled with papers on the ASEAN Security Community and ASEAN
\nEconomic Community.<\/p>\n
The ignorant among us begs the question: What were the
\nnumerous documents -- declarations, concords, treaties etc --
\noriginally conceived for if not for a community among people in
\nthe region in the first place?<\/p>\n
Are Bruneians, Cambodians, Laotians, Indonesians, Malaysians,
\nMyanmarese, Filipinos, Singaporeans, Thais and Vietnamese, so
\nestranged from each other that they need a formal-legalistic
\ndeclaration of intent to become a community?<\/p>\n
If the volume of documents are anything to by, the answer is a
\ndefinite \"yes\".<\/p>\n
Critics have lambasted the regional grouping as a hopeless
\npowwow, meandering from one headline meeting to another. There is
\nmerit to this criticism. ASEAN has a left a mile-long paper trail
\nof declared intents with little effective follow-up.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, in its 37-year history ASEAN has faired well in
\nits most fundamental mission of maintaining peace in a region
\nwhich has not had a history of peaceful cooperation. For that
\npeople's of southeast Asia should be eternally grateful.<\/p>\n
Maybe it is too much to expect more than what has been
\nachieved. ASEAN's accomplishments has always been unfairly
\ncompared to the successes of the European Union's integration.<\/p>\n
But critics forget that despite intensified economic
\ncooperation, nations of the southeast Asian region privately
\nstill regard each as rivals. Mutual suspicion is immersed and
\neconomic development too disparate to allow more stronger
\nintegration.<\/p>\n
The lofty statements in ASEAN meetings obscure the reality
\nthat long standing geographic and strategic differences have not
\nbeen abolished.<\/p>\n
Going through the stack of papers on ASEAN's history, one can
\nsee how member states have persistantly sought common goals in
\norder to foster better cooperation.<\/p>\n
ASEAN's rule has been that focusing on commonalities, instead
\nof differences will breed trust, which eventually enable member
\nstates to eventually bridge disagreements.<\/p>\n
But ASEAN may be out of its element when it talks about
\n\"community\". The problem is that a \"community\" -- whether 50
\npeople or 500 million -- are not rallied together simply out of
\nsheer tangible objectives alone. It is a sense of shared values,
\nnot economic interests, which drive a community together.<\/p>\n
Because of varying political circumstances, peoples of the
\nregion do not share common values. There is no identifiable
\nrallying point, which morally unites this supposed community.<\/p>\n
Democrats and dictators share seek economic growth and
\ndomestic stability for their respective country, but that does
\nnot mean they share common values.<\/p>\n
Most ASEAN countries have adopted some form elections, but
\ndemocracy has not become, in the words of Henry Kissinger, \"the
\ndefining national experience\" for many of them.<\/p>\n
It is not Indonesia's place to preach about democracy and
\nhuman rights. Indonesia respects the principle of non-
\ninterference and sovereignty. ASEAN never required its members to
\nbe democratic regimes in the first place. In fact in its
\ninception most of the original five members of the grouping were
\nthriving \"Western\" supported autocracies, and remained that way
\nfor much of its history.<\/p>\n
But times change, and the values inherent within the member
\nstates have evolved. ASEAN members should not point recriminating
\nfingers at each other, but they should also face the reality that
\nas long as there exists a fault-line between members who adopt a
\nmore open political system and a more closed one, a community in
\nthe truest sense will never exist.<\/p>\n
In this case it is useful to revisit the comparison with the
\nEuropean Union. The core reason for the success of the EU's
\nintegration has not been its treaties or the similar levels of
\neconomic, but the commonality in political values of the European
\nstates.<\/p>\n
Furthermore while regional cooperation and dispute settlement
\nmechanisms are important in alleviating tensions among states,
\nhistory has shown us that open conflicts most rarely occur when
\nneighboring states adhere to open democratic political systems.<\/p>\n
Hence even in its ripe old age, we should perceive ASEAN
\nproportionately. All member states should continue to place the
\nregional grouping as the cornerstone of their foreign policy.
\nASEAN will continue to liberalize regional trade and intensify
\nsocial cooperation.<\/p>\n
But the community of Southeast Asians which ASEAN hopes to
\nestablish will likely remain legalistic and formal in nature --
\nlike much of the collaborations it has engaged so far -- if it
\npersists in inventing words rather than giving relevant substance
\nto its dialog.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/looking-for-common-values-a-community-driven-asean-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}