ASEAN's hurdles to jump

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.