Civil-society and the building of an ASEAN community
Civil-society and the building of an ASEAN community
Alexander C. Chandra
Jakarta
The recent Roundtable Discussion on the Prospects and
Challenges in the Building of an ASEAN Community, which was
organized by the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), shed light
on the importance of civil society in the making of an ASEAN
Community.
Although the building of this community is supported by some
civil-society organizations (CSOs) and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) throughout the region, many elements of the
society are unaware of this project.
In reality, however, even those Southeast Asian CSOs and NGOs
are still very indifferent about the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its integration projects. The only
reason they lend their support toward the building of a region-
wide community is the increasing push by the regional elite to
enhance regional integration in Southeast Asia.
During the aforementioned discussion, officials from
Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs have stipulated that ASEAN
and its member governments have actually agreed to open up the
participation of Southeast Asian CSOs and NGOs in the building of
an ASEAN Community. It is up to those CSOs and NGOs to take up
this opportunity.
Reality, however, depicts a different picture. The fact that
there are limited numbers of Southeast Asian CSOs and NGOs that
pay a lot of attention to the making of an ASEAN Community is
mainly due to the lack of active and popular socialization of
information regarding ASEAN and its activities. Dissemination of
information is, indeed, a classic problem of the association,
which, just like many regional integration projects in the world,
tends to be elitist in nature.
It remains a question as to whether Southeast Asian CSOs and
NGOs have really failed to seize the opportunity presented to
them by ASEAN and its member governments to get involved in the
Association's decision-making process.
Many academic studies have revealed that it is the failure of
ASEAN to actively campaign about its activities. If one were to
ask, for example, any Indonesian CSO or NGO whether they have
ever been asked to be involved in ASEAN's decision-making
process, the answer would simply be "no".
One fact remains that there are not many CSOs and NGOs that
focus their activities on ASEAN. The ASEAN Secretariat and ASEAN
member governments should realize this.
On the other hand, Southeast Asian CSOs and NGOs should
equally pay greater attention to ASEAN and its activities. They
should realize that a strengthened regionalism in Southeast Asia
could complement various activities that they perform within
various layers of society.
Nevertheless, there were some Southeast Asian CSOs and NGOs
that had prepared a statement of recommendations in the building
of an ASEAN Community for the policy makers in both ASEAN
Secretariat and its member governments prior to the
aforementioned Roundtable Discussion.
In that statement, entitled The Building of a Just,
Democratic, Transparent, and Accountable Community for the People
of Southeast Asia, there were 12 recommendations given by
Southeast Asian CSOs and NGOs. There are four points among the 12
that ASEAN should concentrate on if it is to proceed with its
plan to build an ASEAN Community.
They include a more democratic ASEAN, the strengthening of the
roles of the ASEAN Secretariat and its secretary general, wider
and more comprehensive socialization of ASEAN integration
efforts; and ensuring the effective use of ASEAN as a bargaining
block in international fora.
First, there is undoubtedly a severe democratic deficit within
ASEAN. Policy-makers in ASEAN should realize that ASEAN can no
longer be an executive club for leaders of ASEAN member states
anymore. Although a more democratic ASEAN might significantly
slow down the integration process in Southeast Asia, any
decisions achieved through a more democratic decision-making
process would be more likely to represent the interests and needs
of the people of Southeast Asia.
Second, the current role of the ASEAN Secretariat to initiate,
implement, and monitor policies decided by the association's
member governments should be expanded. The role of the
secretariat has to be changed, in such a way that the Secretariat
is no longer responsive just to the member governments but also
to the people of Southeast Asia.
This is where the role of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary
Organization (AIPO) should be relevant. Indeed, this body should
be given a greater role and be considered in the decision-making
processes regarding the future of regionalism in Southeast Asia.
Third, as mentioned earlier, the lack of socialization is the
classic problem of ASEAN, which has created the gap between ASEAN
and the people of Southeast Asia. It is becoming more important
than ever for the association to not only intensify, but also
consider making the socialization process popular.
Fourth, the use of a regional institution as a bargaining
block has been the key rationale for many integration projects
throughout the world. The success of ASEAN in this area has been
somewhat mixed. Although ASEAN has been useful as a bargaining
block in security matters, it has not been so in other areas of
co-operation. ASEAN member states, for example, were often
divided in their positions within the World Trade Organization
(WTO).
Moreover, the pursuit of bilateral free trade agreements by
individual ASEAN member countries could also have a negative
impact on the overall cohesion of ASEAN.
Central to the above-mentioned recommendations, however, would
be the willingness of ASEAN member states to allow greater
participation of members of the civil society in its decision-
making process on the one hand, and the willingness of Southeast
Asian CSOs and NGOs to actively focus on the development of ASEAN
and its integration schemes on the other.
The writer is a research coordinator at Institute for Global
Justice (IGJ). He can be reached at alex@globaljust.org.