Yohanes Sulaiman
The Jakarta Globe
Right from the beginning of its Asean chairmanship this year, Indonesia seemed to try to use its position effectively, notably by sending observers to the disputed area of the Preah Vihear temple on the Thai-Cambodian border. While the action was admirable and some proof that Asean is able to address issues of regional security, the bigger question remains: Is it possible to strengthen the role of the association considering its many structural weaknesses?
Established in 1967 in order to promote peace and stability in the region by fostering regional integration, cooperation and development, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has a fairly successful record in increasing economic cooperation and trade among its member states. Between 1993 and 2009, shares of intra-Asean trade increased from 19.2 percent of total trade to 24.5 percent due to the reduction of tariffs and intra-Asean investment.
As a political entity, however, the 10-member grouping has a mixed record.
On one hand, it appears to be able to promote peace and stability in the region, reducing friction among member states through its ability to gather leaders to discuss policies and reach agreements on various economic, social and cultural matters. On the other hand, it failed to create a common Asean foreign policy, uniting all 10 states in their response to international developments.
Unlike the European Union, Asean is lacking a strong formal institutional mechanism to force compliance from its member states. There is no integrative mechanism, a binding agreement that will require each member to follow a policy set by Asean. In the end, Asean is simply a place to associate, to draft politically non-controversial agreements that will not directly threaten states’ sovereignty, such as in matters of trade and social and cultural exchanges.
The lack of a common foreign policy is due to the fact that the only common denominator among all member states is their location in Southeast Asia.
Each member state is generally ready to give lip service to the necessity and the importance of Asean. But at the same time, each state also tries to make sure that Asean will not have the ability to impose its will upon individual states, especially in matters considered to be of national interest.
In other words, national interests still trump regional interests. Add the principle of non-interference among member states to the mix, and you have the perfect ingredients for a very weak common foreign policy. In the end, Asean members only agree on statements of concern, which actually borders on inaction.
This system works fine during times when there is a clear, easily identifiable and constant enemy (e.g. Communism during the Cold War). But it struggles in tackling issues that require a quick and coordinated response, like terrorism, the current upheaval in the Middle East and security problems in Asean’s own backyard, such as the Thailand-Cambodia border disputes and the Indonesia-Malaysian disputes over the Ambalat sea block.
Witness the impotence of Asean in addressing human rights abuses and electoral manipulation in Burma. While it is true that dialogue can solve problems, the problem is that, without the threat of punishment, there is simply no incentive for the Burmese government to stop the abuses. What would Asean do should if the junta refused to honor an agreement?
There are fears that this policy of relative inaction will backfire, since the record of Asean states on human rights issues is less than stellar. Look at Malaysia’s horrid treatment of Indonesian migrant workers and the persecution of followers of Ahmadiyah in Indonesia.
But the problem is, there is simply insufficient political will among member states to strengthen Asean to the degree of the European Union, lest it threaten the states’ sovereignty and cause embarrassment for their respective governments.
Consequently, Asean is virtually ineffective in settling bilateral disputes among its member states, let alone trying to tackle important global issues that require commitment from its members.
This is a pity, considering the fact that Asean is perfectly situated to help tackle international problems. As a region bordering the rising powers of China and India, Asean actually could play a major role in defusing potential conflicts between them.
Being located in a multi-ethnic region, Asean can also play a role in mediating disputes between Western powers and China.
Having a huge Muslim population can also help bridging the chasm between the strategically important Middle East and Western states concerned about the rise of radical Islam.
Basically, Asean has a critical role to play in managing international conflict. The problem is that the lack of a formal structure to force compliance and commitment from its member states creates a huge credibility problem.
Of course, the biggest question that each member state of Asean should ask is whether it wants Asean to be strong enough to withstand the challenges of an uncertain world — or whether it is content with the current loose-knit association. As the Asean chair in 2011, Indonesia should try to answer this question, lest Asean continue to fade into increasing irrelevance.
Yohanes Sulaiman is a lecturer at the Indonesian National Defense University and a researcher at the Global Nexus Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment