'Cooperative equilibrium' neded by ASEAN

'Cooperative equilibrium' neded by ASEAN

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, The Indonesian Quarterly Centre For Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta, bandoro@csis.or.id

ASEAN's commitment when it was first established in 1967 was
to take care of its immediate region, Southeast Asia. It was
decided that matters relating to Southeast Asia be managed
through cooperative measures between ASEAN member countries. Now
that ASEAN has expanded its membership and its regional
activities have become more extensive, it is more exposed to
myriad regional problems, stemming either from inside or outside
the member countries. The hundreds of ASEAN meetings in a year
and the regular summits of its leaders reflect the reality that
ASEAN is out to prove to the world its cohesiveness and unity.

The dramatic changes that have occurred in the region,
particularly after the World Trade Center bombing in 2001,
however, have forced ASEAN to redefine its regional political and
security role. It is during such a process that we witnessed the
emergence of dissenting opinion within ASEAN members with regard
to the handling of new strategic regional issues. Terrorism is
perhaps one of the most pressing issues ASEAN now faces.

This, however, reflects that only few members of ASEAN are
willing to be part of the ASEAN treaty for combating terrorism.
Not only this. Indonesia's proposal for an ASEAN security
community was, from the outset, received with some reservation.

The idea for an ASEAN peacekeeping force was also considered
unacceptable for certain member countries of ASEAN, with some
arguing that each member of ASEAN had its own political and
military policies and that ASEAN was the wrong entity to play a
regional peacekeeping role.

All this showed that ASEAN, as it attempts to be more outward-
looking, has exposed itself to a situation in which it faces even
more difficulty in arriving at a collective decision. This is
perhaps due to differing perceptions on how the new regional
challenges should be managed. While some members see the
importance of a regional rule to keep the "common garden" of
Southeast Asia clean and free of turbulence, others tend to
possess different priorities on how to "guard" and clean the
garden.

Thus, the outcome of such action and reaction within ASEAN
would be either to keep the "garden" clean anyway or that the
common garden would be abandoned as a result. Here we see that
even fresh regional proposals are bound to cause some members to
defect from an expected common position if the proposal is
considered to be in contradiction with the basic policy of those
member countries. All this indicates that there is no equilibrium
between ASEAN member country interests and the interests of ASEAN
as a whole.

From the perspective of organization theory, a collective
decision and solid organization are indeed important for an
organization if it is to be seen as having the responsibility,
capacity and resources to effectively approach problems. As for
ASEAN, it is a political reality that there is a disequilibrium
between ASEAN's need for long-term security in the region, as
encapsulated in Indonesia's proposal for an ASEAN peacekeeping
force, and the stability of its member countries.

Signs that ASEAN seems to have been unable to maintain, not
lose, its equilibrium are particularly reflected in the way it
responded to the current change in its strategic milieu. Though
the proposal for an ASEAN security community has been endorsed,
its implementation is likely to face many constraints as ASEAN
members tend to perceive things from a different angle.

Thus, the new image of ASEAN that Indonesia is about to
introduce will probably not result in an equilibrium between
ASEAN's new strategies and the availability of its resources. It
will, instead, result in a competitive game between ASEAN member
countries.

Indonesia's proposal for an ASEAN peacekeeping force has
caused a split between ASEAN member countries, at least for now,
and they -- reportedly Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam -- are
acting as if they are forming a coalition opposed to Indonesia as
promoter of the proposal.

The June meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers here is likely to
witness the tabling of new strategies by this coalition on how
new and pressing regional security issues should be approached.
What we shall see in the process is independent initiatives taken
by certain members countries of ASEAN according to their best
response map. There is a tendency toward individualism within the
ASEAN community.

As a regional organization that has been in existence for more
than 30 years, ASEAN has indeed learned a lot from the dynamic of
the region and the way that turbulence has impacted on the
stability and cohesiveness of ASEAN.

In spite of its many regional initiatives and sensitivity to
the changed strategic milieu, many still perceive ASEAN as a
political entity that lacks a clear concept on how to maintain
equilibrium between its expected and actual regional security
roles, between ASEAN's regional interests and the political
preferences of each member country and between cooperation and
competition based on cooperation benefits and costs.

Equilibrium within the ASEAN context should be dynamic in
nature, so it can then be in the form of balance, stable
organization and ability to match the rate of change in its
immediate environment with its rate of invention of new concepts
and image. ASEAN is there to provide adequate stability and
security for the region, as well as to prove that its maintenance
of equilibrium is to bring about better performance within the
ASEAN region.

Thus, cooperative equilibrium may not only be thought of as a
collective decision adopted by ASEAN than can be viewed as stable
against deviations by individuals or groups of member countries,
but it is also a prime prerequisite for ASEAN's sustainable
cooperation. Ignoring the importance of equilibrium will only
result in more deviating coalitions, which is not good for ASEAN.

The writer is also lecturer in the International Relations,
Postgraduate Studies Program, Faculty of Social and Political
Science, University of Indonesia, Jakarta.