ASEAN needs to bolster its role in East Asia

ASEAN needs to bolster its role in East Asia

Bunn Nagara
The Star
Asia News Network
Selangor, Malaysia

While Southeast Asia has seen good and bad times, the future
of ASEAN as its pre-eminent organization is often questioned. The
younger generation in particular needs a better appreciation of
the region's history to contribute more to its future.

Whatever one's views of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) in its 37 years, ASEAN as a subject is not going
to go away.

Quite naturally, ASEAN's fortunes since its 1967 beginnings
have seen high and low points. And not unnaturally, the relative
peace amid interminable challenges in this region has again
provoked questions about the continuing need for ASEAN.

The inaugural ASEAN Leadership Forum was launched by Asli
(Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute) a few days ago in Kuala
Lumpur. Among the various issues covered over two days were the
future of ASEAN and the younger generation's perspectives in
rethinking it.

These are issues which cannot be discussed seriously without
some political baggage from the region's older generation. But
although the forum proceeded without some of these regional
elders who had been invited, the saliency of established policy
positions remained.

There is a critical view of ASEAN impatient with its perceived
inflexibility. ASEAN is seen as unresponsive, outdated, limited
and limiting, performing in ways that are regarded as lackluster.

Critics then cite such examples as Myanmar, East Timor and the
Asian economic and financial crisis: Why did ASEAN not do more to
help?

The problem here lies partly in a lack of understanding of
ASEAN, its constituents and its modus operandi, along with a
tendency to lump all these issues together. Like all
organizations of nation states, ASEAN's membership consists
solely of ruling governments.

This means that because Myanmar is a member of ASEAN, Yangon's
sovereignty and its position on its domestic politics have to be
respected. The admission of Myanmar as a member at the time it
was admitted may be debatable, but that is another matter.

The Asian economic and financial crisis was another kind of
problem again. ASEAN was not intended or designed to solve such
problems any more than any other regional organization was or
any more than ASEAN was meant to tackle a member nation's
domestic issues.

Many of these complaints about ASEAN typically emerge from a
general misunderstanding of ASEAN's origins and purpose.

All the younger generation panelists at the forum assumed that
ASEAN was a Cold War instrument designed to combat global
communism. With presumptions of ASEAN as some kind of NATO or EU,
expectations of it easily become misperceived.

The 1960s were a strategically precarious time for Southeast
Asia, but not because of any communist threat as such. Although
the original members of ASEAN faced the challenge of communist
groups, these were small domestic nuisances with little or no
regional coordination. They were also Maoist-inspired rather than
Soviet-influenced, with the roots of a Sino-Soviet split already
evident in the late-1950s.

The 1960s were also the time for a U.S.-China rapprochement,
as Washington considered playing its "China card" against the
Soviet Union. This was not a time for ASEAN to be a captive
product of the Cold War. But it was still very much a time for
newly independent countries in the region to remain visibly
nationalistic. So while ASEAN could emerge to serve the common
interests of its members, in ways that are mindful of national
sensibilities, it could not be a supranational authority of any
kind.

This was also why other regional organizations that preceded
ASEAN could not go far. The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization
(SEATO) was a Cold War product with only two of its eight members
from the region, so its external coloring and direction found
little regional interest.

Nonetheless, by 1967, enough countries (five) had come to the
common strategic conclusion that they needed to work more closely
together for mutual interests. They also happened to have leaders
visionary enough to see the urgency of a workable ASEAN to
fulfill this task.

It was a precarious time for the region for different reasons.
A fledgling Singapore was finding its feet after separation from
Malaysia, Indonesia's new leaders would reject Sukarno's
confrontation against Malaysia, and the Philippines was mending
fences with Malaysia after its claim to Sabah.

Thailand was anxious to quell the separatist and communist
forces in the south, seeking Malaysia's cooperation in doing so.
Malaysia sought to safeguard its territorial integrity with Sabah
and Sarawak, whose inclusion in Malaysia had been opposed by
Indonesia and the Philippines.

While many of these problems have since been resolved,
problems relating to rival claims over disputed territory in
outlying areas remain. Far from proving the ineffectiveness of
ASEAN, these residual challenges indicate the continuing need for
ASEAN.

The same applies with other problems like the Asian financial
crisis, regional terrorist networks and unconventional security
threats such as piracy, pollution, illegal migration and
contagious diseases. All of them point to the need to develop and
refine ASEAN, not to ignore or abandon it.

Central to criticism of ASEAN is its negotiating style, said
to be saddled with excessive politeness. It is a typical
observation of those unfamiliar with the region, since that
complaint cannot be made of Malaysia-Singapore relations over
issues like water supply.

Another target of critics is ASEAN's principle of non-
interference in the internal affairs of member states, seen as an
obstacle to further progress. But that principle had enabled
ASEAN to be established in the first place, then to grow and
progress until today.

That criticism also forgets how the principle is a common
denominator in inter-state relations in a civilized world,
enshrined in UN declarations and the charter of the Non-Aligned
Movement. If it is an integral part of ASEAN, it is there as a
facilitator and catalyst of ASEAN cooperation.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda recently observed
that ASEAN needed to move beyond some areas of lethargy or
stagnation. While there is merit in streamlining activity and
forging a more pro-active stand on issues, it does not mean
weakening ASEAN's founding principles.

For the medium term, ASEAN needs to be more cohesive as a
component of East Asia. The early 21st century sees a looming
Northeast Asia in a promising East Asia: An influential Japan, a
rapidly developing China, and the prospect of a reunified Korea.

Although each of these countries wields greater economic clout
than any ASEAN member, ASEAN has shown the way in regional
cooperation. Advocates of Northeast Asian cooperation acknowledge
ASEAN's success and look to it for help and support.

Differences like unequal economic strength and problems like
new security threats remain with ASEAN. The question is whether
member nations will allow relatively minor setbacks like these to
eclipse and overrun the larger opportunities that lie ahead.