Looking for common values, a community driven ASEAN

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.