Looking for common values, a community driven ASEAN

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, Jakarta

A group of people with a common characteristic, or interests living together within a larger society. That is Merriam Webster's definition of "community".

After four decades of cooperation, at least four Declarations, two Concords, two Treaties, one Protocol, a Vision Statement and countless agreements, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) now says it wants to establish itself into a "community".

The instruments towards forming an ASEAN Community -- both economic and political -- were high on the agenda of ministerial and summit meetings over the past two years. Hundreds of manpower hours were consumed as officials and regional think tanks wrestled with papers on the ASEAN Security Community and ASEAN Economic Community.

The ignorant among us begs the question: What were the numerous documents -- declarations, concords, treaties etc -- originally conceived for if not for a community among people in the region in the first place?

Are Bruneians, Cambodians, Laotians, Indonesians, Malaysians, Myanmarese, Filipinos, Singaporeans, Thais and Vietnamese, so estranged from each other that they need a formal-legalistic declaration of intent to become a community?

If the volume of documents are anything to by, the answer is a definite "yes".

Critics have lambasted the regional grouping as a hopeless powwow, meandering from one headline meeting to another. There is merit to this criticism. ASEAN has a left a mile-long paper trail of declared intents with little effective follow-up.

Nevertheless, in its 37-year history ASEAN has faired well in its most fundamental mission of maintaining peace in a region which has not had a history of peaceful cooperation. For that people's of southeast Asia should be eternally grateful.

Maybe it is too much to expect more than what has been achieved. ASEAN's accomplishments has always been unfairly compared to the successes of the European Union's integration.

But critics forget that despite intensified economic cooperation, nations of the southeast Asian region privately still regard each as rivals. Mutual suspicion is immersed and economic development too disparate to allow more stronger integration.

The lofty statements in ASEAN meetings obscure the reality that long standing geographic and strategic differences have not been abolished.

Going through the stack of papers on ASEAN's history, one can see how member states have persistantly sought common goals in order to foster better cooperation.

ASEAN's rule has been that focusing on commonalities, instead of differences will breed trust, which eventually enable member states to eventually bridge disagreements.

But ASEAN may be out of its element when it talks about "community". The problem is that a "community" -- whether 50 people or 500 million -- are not rallied together simply out of sheer tangible objectives alone. It is a sense of shared values, not economic interests, which drive a community together.

Because of varying political circumstances, peoples of the region do not share common values. There is no identifiable rallying point, which morally unites this supposed community.

Democrats and dictators share seek economic growth and domestic stability for their respective country, but that does not mean they share common values.

Most ASEAN countries have adopted some form elections, but democracy has not become, in the words of Henry Kissinger, "the defining national experience" for many of them.

It is not Indonesia's place to preach about democracy and human rights. Indonesia respects the principle of non- interference and sovereignty. ASEAN never required its members to be democratic regimes in the first place. In fact in its inception most of the original five members of the grouping were thriving "Western" supported autocracies, and remained that way for much of its history.

But times change, and the values inherent within the member states have evolved. ASEAN members should not point recriminating fingers at each other, but they should also face the reality that as long as there exists a fault-line between members who adopt a more open political system and a more closed one, a community in the truest sense will never exist.

In this case it is useful to revisit the comparison with the European Union. The core reason for the success of the EU's integration has not been its treaties or the similar levels of economic, but the commonality in political values of the European states.

Furthermore while regional cooperation and dispute settlement mechanisms are important in alleviating tensions among states, history has shown us that open conflicts most rarely occur when neighboring states adhere to open democratic political systems.

Hence even in its ripe old age, we should perceive ASEAN proportionately. All member states should continue to place the regional grouping as the cornerstone of their foreign policy. ASEAN will continue to liberalize regional trade and intensify social cooperation.

But the community of Southeast Asians which ASEAN hopes to establish will likely remain legalistic and formal in nature -- like much of the collaborations it has engaged so far -- if it persists in inventing words rather than giving relevant substance to its dialog.