ASEAN: Moving on the right track (1)

By Vitit Muntarbhorn

This is the first of two articles examining the path the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has taken thus far. The 1995 ASEAN Summit will take place at the end of this month.

BANGKOK: The roots of regionalism in the Post-World War II period can be traced back to the United Nations Charter which provided for the possibility of regional approaches and arrangements.

However, the components of regionalism were left undefined, indicating much leeway for evolution after 1945. History has proved since then that regionalism can take many forms for a variety of purposes, varying between political and security pacts to economic, social and cultural cooperation. Regional mechanisms range from integrated and closely knit entities verging on a union of the member states to looser conglomerations, such as an association based upon a specific set of objectives subject to gradual cooperation.

A recent publication of the United Nations identifies the following ingredients of regionalism, evident at this point in time.

" -- three or more geographically proximate states

-- mutual dependence arising from common interests

-- defined by an ad hoc problem

-- and interrelated units whose activities are significant determinants of each other's policies."

The path towards regionalism in Southeast Asia has oscillated between a variety of regional approaches. In the post World War II period, the rise of the Cold War and conflictual undercurrents between the Western bloc and the communist/socialist bloc were deeply felt in the region, and the early alliances in Southeast Asia were of a political and security kind. This was exemplified by the formation of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) which was a security pact involving not only the countries of Southeast Asia but also their "guarantors" from the West who saw it innately as a defense organization against communist threats in the region.

Various politico-economic alliances, with less of a focus on security matters, were experimented with before 1967, for example, Maphilindo (between Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia) and the Association of Southeast Asia (between the non-communist countries of the region). However, these failed to materialize, and it was only in 1967 that there emerged the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Initially, there were five member countries, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. Much later, Brunei joined, and in 1995 Vietnam is set to become the seventh member country.

Interestingly, at the outset ASEAN did not set out expressly to be a regional organization of a political mold. The 1967 founding instrument -- the Bangkok Declaration -- did not even use the term "political" in its objectives. The seven specific aims of ASEAN were as follows:

-- acceleration of economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region;

-- promotion of regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter;

-- collaboration and assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields;

-- mutual assistance in the education, professional, technical and administrative fields;

-- collaboration in regard to agriculture, industries, trade, services and improved standards of living;

-- promotion with other international and regional organizations of a similar nature.

Throughout the years, ASEAN has placed great emphasis on consensus-building (Mushyawarah/Mufakat). There is no supranational ASEAN institution with powers to override national sovereignty. However, there are various annual ministerial meetings and sporadic Heads of Government Summits to propel activities, assisted by the ASEAN Secretariat situated in Jakarta. The administrative structure is replete with committees covering an array of issues.

It is in the political field that the weight of ASEAN has been felt most strongly in recent decades. While the political impact of ASEAN has been significant, its other initiatives in the economic, social and cultural areas have lagged behind.

In this light, its "successes" have often been in its "extra-regional" interaction with outsiders rather than its "intra-regional" interaction between the ASEAN member countries themselves, with the political domain benefiting most from this interaction. A continual question is whether it can broaden the benefits of cooperation beyond the political field.

As ASEAN approaches the next century, it is intriguing to prospect whether it will innovate and reinvent itself in a more comprehensive manner or be relegated to a degree of obsolescence when faced with other emerging regional systems in its proximity.

At this juncture, the roots of cooperation in the political and security field deserve closer attention.

At its inception in 1967, there were already present many bilateral disputes between the member countries of ASEAN, for example a territorial dispute between the Philippines and Malaysia over Sabah. The advent of ASEAN helped to accommodate these disputes and to reduce bilateral conflicts by means of regional cooperation.

During the late 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, the pre- occupation of Southeast Asia was the war in Indochina, seen by many as a war between communism and capitalism in the region. Outside powers were involved directly and indirectly, witnessed by the presence of U.S. and other western forces supporting one polarity in Indochina, on the one hand, and the policy of the Soviet Union and China supporting the other polarity, on the other hand. ASEAN countries were part and parcel of the former and spent most of their energy countering what they perceived to be a communist threat in the region. In 1971 the foreign Ministers of ASEAN met to adopt the notion of Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality as a means of neutralizing Southeast Asia in the midst of this conflict. Cooperation between ASEAN countries at the regional level, beyond the area of politics and security, was almost non- existent.

The ASEAN heads of government did not meet at a Summit until 1975 in Bali. Significantly, this was the year when the U.S. withdrew its troops from Indochina, and the governments of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia changed hands; communism prevailed in these countries. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the region must have created nervous jitters in the ASEAN regional which felt that the security umbrella previously accorded by the U.S. could no longer be relied upon. It was this crisis that led to a closer alignment between ASEAN countries as a political umbrella for themselves with implications for their security, even though they did wish to go as far as to convert ASEAN into a military bloc.

The instrument for closer cooperation was a series of initiatives taken at the Bali Summit. The Declaration of ASEAN Concord was adopted outlining new areas of cooperation, especially in the economic and commercial field, paving the way to programs for cooperation. ASEAN also concertized its first treaty -- the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which highlighted various yardsticks for peace and security derived from the United Nations Charter, with a clear message for ASEAN and its neighbors as follows:

* mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identify of all nations;

* the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;

* non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

* renunciation of the threat of use of force.

The treaty also provided for the possibility of a dispute settlement mechanism in the form of a High Council. However, the latter has never been established.

Window A: Interestingly, at the outset ASEAN did not set out expressly to be a regional organization of a political mould.

Window B: It is in the political field that the weight of ASEAN has been felt most strongly in recent decades.