Local stability hurdle for ASEAN

Local stability hurdle for ASEAN

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): With Cambodia's admission into the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) last year, at the
association's sixth summit, the dream of an ASEAN-10 has finally
become reality.

The economic and political crisis that has beset some ASEAN
countries, however, seems to have left affairs of the association
on the back burner, at least, apparently, for 1999.

However, it will no longer justify the division of the region
into a "rich" and "poor" Southeast Asia.

The Bangkok Declaration of 1967 provides that the association
is open for membership to the other countries of the region. The
provision expresses the aspiration for a one, undivided Southeast
Asia. The realization of such an aspiration would, at least,
reconfirm the reference to Southeast Asia in the designation of
the association and would more firmly establish the identity of
Southeast Asia as a region.

An expanded ASEAN into ASEAN-10 representing the entire region
will improve its chance to act as a group and to be treated as
such by the outside world on an equal basis. This would mean
potentially strengthening ASEAN's bargaining position vis--vis
the world.

That, however, will depend not only on whether it can continue
to maintain mutually beneficial economic cooperation and trade
relations with external powers, but also on its credibility and
respectability.

These, in turn, will be determined by the extent to which the
member states, individually as well as collectively, manage to
put their own houses in order, a principle underlying the
association in the first place in its joint efforts to create
regional order, peace and stability, free from external
interference.

Indeed, globalization has been the catchword of today's world.
The rapidly spreading monetary and economic crisis in the region
is but one piece of evidence of the strength of the trend toward
globalization. Never have the nations of the world, especially
within the region, been so open to one another as now.

One would expect that the crisis will help bring relations and
cooperation among ASEAN members closer together. This may have
been true with regard to the economic field. Yet, interestingly,
that does not seem to be the case in the political field.

More than in any other country in the region, the monetary and
economic crisis in Indonesia is tightly intertwined with its
political system, and thus with the whole political life of the
nation. It is worth noting that Indonesia was one of the
opponents to the idea of "flexible engagement" proposed by
Thailand and supported by the Philippines at the annual meeting
of ASEAN foreign ministers in Manila. The Thai proposal may be
regarded as an extension of the policy of "constructive
engagement" developed by ASEAN states particularly with reference
to Myanmar.

The largest member, yet perhaps among the least confident
economically as well as politically now, Indonesia has been the
strongest proponent of ASEAN's traditional policy of
noninterference in the domestic affairs of other countries.

In the present-day world, however, which is becoming
increasingly open, interconnected and interdependent, it is not
always easy to draw the line between what is strictly the
domestic affair of a nation and what should be the concern of
humanity, and, thus, of the international community.
Nevertheless, sometimes a nation's pragmatic considerations that
relate to its short-term interests take precedence.

Thus caught between the pressures for the pursuit of a
somewhat extreme policy of economic sanction and isolation on
Myanmar and practically "no policy" of noninterference, ASEAN
tried to tackle the dilemma by the horns when considering the
entry of the country into ASEAN a few years back.

ASEAN would rather try to help through "constructive
engagement", to "show our understanding and support for a
peaceful reconciliation among the people of Myanmar," as Minister
of Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas was reported as saying at that
time. Yet constructive engagement, according to him, did not mean
"turning a blind eye to developments that could be detrimental to
the country, because any negative development could affect the
whole region."

So far, however, that kind of policy seems to have meant not
much more than burying their heads in the sand, pretending as
though everything was fine and in good order. But it is
understandable, especially as far as Indonesia is concerned, in
light of what has been happening inside the country for over the
past two years. It has turned out that Indonesia has not done
better at all as far as domestic affairs are concerned. Together
with Singapore, and particularly Malaysia, Indonesia would rather
resort to a play of words, preferring "interaction" to
"engagement", whatever fine difference there may be between the
two terms.

Recent domestic developments in Southeast Asia that may impact
on the rest of ASEAN now include Malaysia, and worst of all,
Indonesia. Today, it is these two countries that make headlines
and cover stories in the region, no longer Cambodia and Myanmar.

And while by no means approving, one may now understand better
why the ASEAN states never condemned Cambodia's Pol Pot,
Indonesia's Soeharto, or Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad (for his
treatment of his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim).

Indeed, the promotion of good governance and the establishment
of a civil society, which do relate to domestic stability, are
problems that are common to all ASEAN members.

It will depend on their performance in these fields whether
ASEAN-10 ensures greater security and stability, not only for its
members individually but also collectively for the region as a
whole. And it will earn its credibility and respectability in the
international community only by clearly demonstrating its
commitment, not to the much-boasted but mostly distorted "Asian
values", but to universal values in the common interest of
humanity and by adhering to certain internationally accepted
standards and norms of behavior.