Another important consideration about ASEAN is that its members are a set of countries with different colonial experience coalesced in common purposes of economic well-being and national integrity. For some scholars, the increasing of ASEAN would be a response to world trend such as European Union (EU) and NAFTA, but instead of a intra-ASEAN similar to EU, ASEAN has an indigenous approach concerning inter-state ASEAN plus external power.
During the last time, ASEAN has had much criticism about its supposed ineffectiveness, however its real success is something intangible and different to Western style. Although there are many important ones, the principal achievement of ASEAN is its existence.
Source: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/international_statistical_cooperation/asia_and_latin_america/asia/asean
Historically the Southeast region have been different trends of regionalization led by powers. Basically, the first was led by Japan and the second by China. In the first case, Japan was interested in a regionalism process led by it, with a kind of vertical administrative system and formal relationship, featured by a strong Japanese support in terms of trade, aid, investment, technology transfer and even, the emulation of the Japanese Developmental State Model, which had been successful for the quick economic development of Japan.
Then, in the case of China, the proposal of process was different from the previous one, following the criteria of “Greater China”, there was horizontal, informal networks between mainland China and Chinese population, who lived in the Southeast Asia countries, in areas of business and personal trust facilitates. Scholars affirm that families networks were the Key for Chinese success, for example the Special economic zones established in China flourished thanks to investors, who were overseas Chinese from the rest of Asia.
Following a different way from the two trends mentioned above, the regionalism process in Southeast Asia was went after different terms, having the principles of maintaining autonomy, sovereignty, and warding off external interference in domestic affairs. It is said that the big motivation for the creation of ASEAN was finally the threat of war and deal with big powers (such as Russia, China, Japan, USA, Australia, India, etc.), in the context of the Cold War and the spread of communism.
Countries, which suffer terrorism threats were quick supported by US, but when US used this it to justify the war in Iraq, it was a sensitive feeling in ASEAN, specially for countries with large Muslim population, Now, these countries are concern about potential American interventions.
As we mentioned the colonial past of the ASEAN members is an important factor of consideration for the creation and evolution of the organization. In fact, the ASEAN members all, with the exception of Thailand, had been European colonies, after the World War II, these new independent countries naturally were worried about economic development and political stability, for this inherited these goals have been accompanied with a complex process of nation building.
ASEAN has some antecedents for its creation as was the efforts for greater regional cooperation in terms of regional security, through the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) with only two full member from the region. Then was the inauguration of the Association for Southeast Asia (ASA) in 1961, composed by Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand; and MAPHILINDO, established briefly in 1963 by Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. Although without success, all these previous regional institutions would be provided indigenous foundations for the final establishment of ASEAN in 1967.
At the beginning of the creation of ASEAN, there was a clear division between countries, what was a decisive factor for its formation. The division consisted in two group of countries in the Southeast Asia region. In the first group were whom thought that US involving in the region was a commitment against communism, and the second group, who argued a US appetite for neo-colonialism. The first group (Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore) who stood with US, were who created ASEAN, while the other four (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) leant toward China.
In the following table we can see the current 10 members of ASEAN. From them, five are founding members: Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. Clearly there had been a process of widening to additional five members, but for critical, at the same time there is not a process of deepening in the organization, because ASEAN members still nervous about their sovereignty, there is not progress about strengthen of the institutional aspects.
Table 1: ASEAN members, date of membership, GDP, population and GDP per capita
Source: IMF and CIA. Owned elaboration.
The critics to ASEAN would be a grave mistake, since they have as foundation a comparisons with other regionalism process as the EU, this comparison would not be totally valid, because ASEAN was designed as a indigenous regional integration and do not want to replicate the EU or other experience. For example one critic is about the difference between ASEAN and EU secretariat, where ASEAN secretariat is smaller, poorly resourced and powerless, but it is true that ASEAN members are against the idea of a powerful one, and explicitly against interventionist EU-style.
In fact, ASEAN is strongly criticized about poor achievement in terms of tangible results, for instance for its weak relative economic integration in comparison with others regions such as the EU. It would be due to the most important achievement are in the political and intangible area, thus the country members have enjoyed a more peaceful and stable relation among them, inculcating cooperative norms, prohibiting the use of force in resolving intra-regional disputes, further in favor of a collective strength against external threats.
The ASEAN way.-
ASEAN follow its own approach known as the “ASEAN way”. Something unique about this approach is the link with traditional regional practices of consensus-findings and consultation. Different to the Western style of legalism potentially confrontational, the ASEAN way rely on personal connections among political elites. However, this approach is non-transparent and accountable. Therefore, also ASEAN has a little connection of support from national societies.
The “ASEAN way” consist in a soft relationship and a process of gradualism, thus it enrobes the more fundamental principle of non-interference in national issues. There is an predominant state-centered approach to a people-centered approach.
East Asia as part of Asia Pacific, has a specific and distinctive modes of economic development and political organization. These countries have the Developmental State Model inherited by Japan, where there are together market-driven and state assisted. In each country there is Governmental interventions is a initial impetus, but where actually the public sector focus on creating the enabling environment rather than on active intervention in business activities.
There were interesting measures to ensure inflows of foreign direct investment. At the middle of 1990s members of ASEAN created growth triangles such as the Indonesia-Malaysia-Singapore Growth Triangle (IMS GT), and the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand (IMT) GT, allowing areas trying the best combination of resources for distributed manufacturing and formed attractive investment locations for both domestic and foreign capital.
In that sense, Southeast Asia offer an alternative to the Western, neoliberal, market-oriented model, which could be attractive for other regions such as Africa or Latin-American, challenge at the same time direct interventions of external international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
However, at the same time, these the traditional policies of state support and protectionism are threatened by the liberalization forces of economic and political organization.
Given the critics about the lack of effectiveness, it is considered the rethinking of the “ASEA way”, which is going to the creation of the “ASEAN Charter”, attempting to get a more cohesive structure with specific rules of engagement for the countries members, for instance enforceable obligations, a streamlined secretariat, the privileges of membership, voting rights, the nature of decision-making and so on.
Achievement and Challenges.-
The economic crisis of 1997, represented the biggest challenge to the “ASEAN way”. There was a clear lack of action and inability to coordinate activities of the members. There was also see a confrontational positions between more liberal and authoritarian members of ASEAN. Where, the flexibility of the “ASEAN way”, even not allow the possibility that any member could criticized the policy of others.
In the post crisis of 1997, there was a renewed for the liberalization in the Southeast Asia region. In consequence it also was a renewed the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) among all members, which was established in 1992, looking for reduction of commercial barriers and to attract inward investment. However, there had been modest barriers reductions due to the “ASEAN way” of flexibility.
The crisis of 1997, also made ASEAN countries to move to the create regional institutions alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which would be led by Japan. However this initiative has the opposition of US, making prevail the idea that ASEAN countries should see toward internal structural problems rather than to take another easy way of solution.
Additional, ASEAN leaders have been remind that they have to do more about the improvement of democracy and freedom to their people, if they want to have American respect. However, many leaders have responded robustly against these calls, which had been the explicit case of Malaysia and Singapore.
Probably, the most negative consideration about the ASEAN economies, is that they are competitive rather than complementary. Added to this, economic competition make “ASEAN way” increasingly anachronistic and unsupportable.
On the other hand, some scholars affirm that ASEAN have had success, but more in terms of what is not seen. The fact that the ASEAN members states have avoided armed conflict with each other after they have joined is a significant point to consider. It is important to acknowledge that there has been no conflict between ASEAN members during its existence.
The most evident achievement is the frequent presented the case of Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978, stopped by ASEAN, but with the support of powers such as USA and China. Also, The ASEAN way would be allowed a process of constructive engagement with Myanmar, which would be more effective than possible sanctions.
ASEAN has allowed to develop other organizations such as ASEAN-ISIS in 1984, which refers to a series of non-governmental organizations, the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), and the most important, the establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994 to promote political and security dialogue among all the countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Now there is the debate about the particular way of enlargement of the 10-ASEAN plus powers. First was the ASEAN plus one created at the beginning of the nineties and included China. The ASEAN plus three – APT (including China, Japan and Korea) created in 1997. It is expected that the APT should contribute to the peace and stability of Southeast Asia. Looking for increasing the dialogue about economic, environment, social, cultural, and energy issues.
Then, at 2005 in the first East Asian Summit, China proposed the creation of East Asia Community. Trying to weaken US influence, at the same time, Japan (aiming to counterbalance Chinese influence in Southeast Asia) proposed to include India, Austria and New Zealand. It would become the organization in a ASEAN plus six. And, in the same line, there is the proposal for the creation of ASEAN plus 8, adding US and Russia.
ASEAN Quiz
ReplyDelete