ASEAN's hurdles to jump

By Landry Haryo Subianto

JAKARTA (JP): Most countries in Southeast Asia, plus many others throughout the region, are suffering in what has been dubbed the "Asian crisis". It is a multidimensional crisis that has negatively affected not only the level of economic welfare of the people, put also social and political stability of certain states.

Countries are struggling to regain their economic momentum, while at the same reforging national stability. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) -- whose goals are to increase and maintain regional welfare and stability -- is, of course, one of the potential ways to escape the divisive situation because ASEAN, as in the case of Cambodia, has been a way to settle some of these problems.

For nearly three and a half decades, ASEAN has been viewed as an ideal example of regional cooperation. This is, to some extent, true since ASEAN has played an undisputed role in maintaining regional stability and peace through its numerous regional activities. Moreover, among many other factors, its leaders' personal amity and clear common goals also have contributed significantly to ASEAN's successful achievements so far.

Nonetheless, ASEAN also is an association shouldering many complications, especially during the last two years. There are at least five types of problems that need to be addressed immediately.

First, devastating economic hardship leads to "weaker" societal foundations of ASEAN countries, meaning that current economic upheavals have propelled domestic instability within the region.

Second, ASEAN processional and institutional arrangements, which also cover the decision-making mechanism among its leaders (including some basic principles such as noninterference, consensus, commonality) and to some extent the enlargement of ASEAN membership to include Myanmar and all Indochina, are not well established. Some leaders have started to requestion the common policy that ASEAN should undertake.

Third, issue management, which is overwhelmed by security issues, both in terms of conventional security (military) and nonconventional (environment, narco/techno-terrorism, and illegal migration social unrest and so forth), has been so crucial and important to ASEAN. It needs full attention and serious efforts to prevent escalating excess or proliferation of conflicts.

Fourth, the changing path of external demands or interests on a variety of subjects, mostly in relatively sensitive matters such as human rights and democratization, has to some extent distanced ASEAN from its outside partners.

Fifth, ASEAN is urged to be consistent with its economic development strategy, which also encompasses the urgency to tap the pace of global economic trends and to maintain the functionality of the principle of the open economy, which reflects ASEAN's commitment to the market-oriented economy (through AFTA).

ASEAN is now entering a new stage of its 32-year history with a wide range of problems. Initially, the new stage is simply characterized by a "state of euphoria" both inside and outside ASEAN and a "state of readjustment", due to changing leadership and several minor disputes among some leaders.

The euphoria refers to the growing demands for democratization, often viewed as "dangerous poison from the West" by many ASEAN governments. They claim that such ideas would endanger the domestic and regional stability and it will only be advantageous to Westerners. Most ASEAN members have been criticized for their authoritarian mode of government. Critics frequently accuse the governments for their human rights' violations and improper practice of democracy. People from inside and outside the region urge more appropriate implementation of democracy. It means that the government should positively address public or international demands for a better, more transparent and accountable political process and governance.

But the governments' arguments that human rights and democracy a la Asia are rooted in Asian values, and thus different from the Western one and incomparable, lacks a solid logical basis. It is becoming obsolete because once we talk about democracy within the context of ASEAN, we are not trying to confront Southeast Asian values and tradition with the Western one. Instead, we are discussing how genuine local values can channel, for better or worse, people's aspirations. The same logic applies to the case of human rights violation and so forth.

However, ASEAN leaders also are obliged to maintain their organization's existence through the strengthening of solidarity. Some believe that ASEAN will be able to survive all the difficulties only if they consistently commit to regional solidarity. In this sense, solidarity is widely accepted as one of the cementing factors that keeps ASEAN in one piece. Unfortunately, in certain situations, solidarity is narrowly associated with applying noninterference principles in the ASEAN forum. Challenging the tenet means disturbing ASEAN solidarity and is viewed as counterproductive to cohesiveness.

Henceforth, according to Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew (Asiaweek, May 21, 1999), as the economic meltdown took place in the region, every (new) leader was in a state of disarray and their personal relations deteriorated. Some leaders openly criticized their ASEAN colleagues' performance and policies, and, to some extent, it triggered a serious backlash for the region. Accordingly, solidarity was merely left behind, creating confusion for ASEAN watchers and analysts.

Furthermore, as economic and political turmoil hit the region, ASEAN is viewed with mixed feelings. Many cynically accused ASEAN of deteriorating and being unbelievably powerless in handling regional turbulence. ASEAN members have been accused of being too selfish to think of others, which is not a good sign for ASEAN cohesiveness. However, some view ASEAN's inability in a more balanced perspective by stating that it is high domestic tension that underpins a country in helping its neighbors. It means that while ASEAN is still undergoing some readjustment processes in anticipating its changing external and internal settings, individual members also are facing their very own domestic difficulties.

According to a common perception that is widely recognized among its members, regional stability depends on domestic stability, and vice versa. Therefore, it is understandable if ASEAN seems to be very slow in completing its readjustment process since many of its members are still struggling in regaining their internal stability. We could find this in the case of Indonesia and Malaysia. Those two prominent members are now suffering from the absence of domestic stability. Accordingly, their contribution to ASEAN enhancement not the same as in previous years. However, some are optimistic that ASEAN will soon be able to gain stronger ability and confidence in dealing with all regional problems.

Inevitably, the way ASEAN handles regional problems has badly affected overall performance of the organization in the last two years, particularly since the outbreak of the crisis. Nonetheless, the crisis showed that ASEAN is not yet as strong as people thought. Accordingly, it is worth enough for ASEAN to rethink its very basic tenure, solidarity and how it should be tailored with increasing demands for democratization. Without comprehensive understanding about these two concepts, ASEAN will find it difficult to overcome at least those five existing problems.

How does ASEAN maintain its level of solidarity while at the same time also addressing growing demands for democratization? The most viable way to answer the question is to recourse ASEAN policy and direction into one which is more "future-oriented" rather than relying itself on "past legacy" of symbolism. Nobody would object to solidarity, hence, its operationalization sometimes does not fit recent conditions and is not implemented consistently. What ASEAN can and should do is try to be consistent with its tenets while at the same time being more accommodative to growing demands for democratization, and other related subjects (e.g. human rights).

Another aspect that the leaders and officials should bear in mind is that for new members such as Cambodia, ASEAN is attractive because it can provide them with security and stability as well as exit to better international relations. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen (Asiaweek, May 21 1999) also recognized ASEAN as an organization that is full of spirit of community, which is important in developing (new) member's confidence. Economically, ASEAN is viewed as a means to generate economic profits and therefore increasing living standards. Thus, it is important for ASEAN to wisely put itself in a correct position between the demand for a more open and democratized society and the need for firm solidarity.

Despite all the pessimism, ASEAN has proved its credibility by successfully repairing its performance in international diplomacy. Recent developments in ASEAN-EU talks have marked this success. ASEAN consistency and rational arguments concerning Myanmar finally made EU recognize the importance of Myanmar's membership in ASEAN. However, ASEAN also should be persistent in improving its human rights records and, more importantly, implementation of democracy. By doing so, it will be easier for ASEAN to successfully deal with the five major problems lying ahead.

The writer is a researcher in the Department of International Affairs, Centre for Strategic and International Studies.