SRP MP Son Chhay (R) with Austalia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (L) who initiated the Australia on Asia Pacific Community conference (Sydney, December 4-5, 2009) attended by MP Son Chhay.By MP Son Chhay
December 2009
There have been many debates on the appropriateness of multilateral cooperation in the Asia Pacific region, none really bearing much fruit. However given recent global challenges – economic, security and environmental – it may be timely to resume the debate on what, if any, role ASEAN should play in any proposed Asia-Pacific Multilateralism and the Challenges such a role would create for ASEAN.
ASEAN’s “One Caring and Sharing Community” vision which was declared on the launch of its new Charter in 2007, some four decades after its creation on August 8, 1967, is far removed from the reality. To date there has been little is no evidence of collective responsibility in the region and recent developments in Burma is but one example.
However on the 14th Summit last month in Cha-am Thailand, the ASEAN leaders agreed to constitute the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community (2009-2015) to replace the Vientiane Action Programme. Whether this new initiative will succeed where its predecessor failed is still unclear. The fragile association of nations the comprise ASEAN are still struggling to find common ground. To then expand ASEAN to include the Pacific region may therefore, it could be argued, is both untimely and unrealistic.
ASEAN is regarded by many academics as essentially an inward-looking organisation primarily concerned with the domestic stability of its neighbours and the management of its own Southeast Asian domain. However ASEAN potentially could play a more pivotal role in the wider Pacific and International community and influence decisions pertaining to climate change, security, trade, especially if it does not want to be left behind on the global stage. It will however require a significant amount of work and commitment from ASEAN leaders because of the many challenges ASEAN would have to meet for this to be successful.
Probably the strongest point in ASEAN’s favour is that it has already a proven record in terms of regional cooperation initiatives. While ASEAN has maintained its organisational integrity, it has added over recent years, new internal and external dimensions. The former includes the incipient ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), a group of ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) which has been particularly vocal in condemning Myanmar's human rights violations, and the "Track Three" ASEAN People's Assembly, an NGO that brings a variety of societal interest groups together to lobby ASEAN governments. ASEAN-dominated organizations encompass the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) on security matters, ASEAN+3 (Japan, South Korea and China), various ASEAN+1 dialogues with important states, the ASEAN-Europe meeting (ASEM), and most recently, regular dialogues with the Gulf Cooperation Council, Africa and Latin America. The newest and most contentious addition to the mix is the East Asian Summit (EAS) inaugurated in December 2005. The EAS brings ASEAN+3 countries together with India, Australia and New Zealand, all of which have signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) as a membership condition.
The outcomes of such a cooperative initiatives may be too early to effectively assess however one thing is clear: ASEAN has the ability to transcend the different cultural, economic and political heterogeneity of the various players in the region and has proven that it can work together with them within a very different kind of regionalism than that which has emerged in Europe or North America.
In addition, over the ensuing decades, security issues have become increasingly transnationals Money laundering, human trafficking, environmental degradation, multi-national river development, migratory maritime species, terrorism and piracy require multilateral regime building rather than ad hoc diplomacy. In theory, at least, organisations such as ASEAN have proven established procedures and decision-making rules whereby all governmental stakeholders have a voice. This could be very beneficial to ensure that the vulnerable and politically lightweight Pacific island members have a greater voice and representation than in other forums where they have instead displayed a high level of dependence on the US, Japan, Australia and NZ.
There have however been valid arguments against the effectiveness of ASEAN's role in any Asia Pacific regional group. It has been argued that stability in the region has little to do with distribution of power within the Asia-Pacific, particularly an international organisation of small and medium states confined to Southeast Asia, and, that the real locus of Asia-Pacific power, depends on relations with the major actors: such as the United States and Japan. Certainly in these discussion at this forum, will need to assess whether these major players should be considered an integral member of the region or merely an external power with extensive interests in the region.
However other arguments in favour of ASEAN’s involvement in the Pacific point out that the ASEAN engages in neither balancing or band wagoning with the major powerful countries but rather through multinational institutions, particularly ASEAN’s offspring (the ARF and APT), it promotes economic and political cooperation by promoting collaboration that provides benefits to all through reciprocity. However, the distribution of those benefits with the recent financial crisis including the 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis and the recent global recession have had some set backs. Neither ASEAN, the ARF nor the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) were able to cope with financial distress in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. As for security, ASEAN also failed to mediate the 1999 East Timor crisis, the recent Burmese situation to name a few.
On the other hand, ASEAN is emerging as a nascent security community as a "we feeling" develops among its members and where more and more among member States its norms, values are being shared and evolving over time. Critics however argue that norms and values in ASEAN are too difficult to define and operate. For example values such as democracy, rule of law, are still vaguely defined within the Asian context. This makes linking vague norms to actual policy outcomes in ASEAN difficult as it is still based on bargaining among member States whose interests vary greatly even on principles as basic as democratic principles. How would such values translate under an Asia Pacific umbrella?
It has been argued that the Asia Pacific region was originally thought of as too vast and diverse to fit into one regional conceptual mould. Whilst there is some argument that ethnicity can be a factor in positive nation building the fact is that Asian approaches and values may be too different from those of the Pacific Islands.
Others argue that regions are not artificial constructions derived purely from geographical proximity but are products of history shaped by diverse forms of cultural economic and political interaction. At a time of rapid geopolitical and geo economic changes marked by increasing diffusion of power they provide useful avenues for redefining not only security but other models of co-operative behaviour –locus for socialisation norms and values transferred and new identities and beliefs formed.
For Example, there have been accelerated linkages between ASEAN and the European Union recently. This strong nexus that has evolved could happen because of the rich legacy that linked the two regions i.e. silk road, European colonialism. Yet there were still major challenges to overcome. For example there was the criticism that that Europe could not treat Asia as an undifferentiated mass – were problems with geographical delineation. Also the EU has faced its own dilemmas working with a region whose values in terms of human rights the rule of law democracy is clearly not to European standards leading ASEAN to reject European pressure on the question of East Timor as one example. Not withstanding these issues ASEAN and EU are working together and there is an ongoing dialogue process.
There is potential therefore for ASEAN to extend to Pacific nations also some mechanisms for principles of co-operation which are currently in the Pacific region ad hoc and issue arise dependent. However as with the EU need to have mutual reasons for achieving this and if not historical or geographical, perhaps an environmental economic interdependency may be one option.
Clearly the comprehensiveness and versatility for the multilateral process has been a distinguishing feature of the ASEAN process. Multilateral dialogue, whilst not always successful and marked by failures, has nevertheless provided some stability to the South East Asian region through strengthening separate ministries and bureaucracies i.e. foreign affairs, police health environment to coordinate their activities assessment and recommendations thus providing a more integrated way to regional policy making. The question is can ASEAN - a subregional coalition of like minded regimes facing similar intra security issues- realistically include Pacific nations and a wider regional community dealing with an increasingly interdependent and complex set of issues in response to the growing global pressures and in so doing, effectively promote a region wide dialogue?
ASEAN’s “One Caring and Sharing Community” vision which was declared on the launch of its new Charter in 2007, some four decades after its creation on August 8, 1967, is far removed from the reality. To date there has been little is no evidence of collective responsibility in the region and recent developments in Burma is but one example.
However on the 14th Summit last month in Cha-am Thailand, the ASEAN leaders agreed to constitute the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community (2009-2015) to replace the Vientiane Action Programme. Whether this new initiative will succeed where its predecessor failed is still unclear. The fragile association of nations the comprise ASEAN are still struggling to find common ground. To then expand ASEAN to include the Pacific region may therefore, it could be argued, is both untimely and unrealistic.
ASEAN is regarded by many academics as essentially an inward-looking organisation primarily concerned with the domestic stability of its neighbours and the management of its own Southeast Asian domain. However ASEAN potentially could play a more pivotal role in the wider Pacific and International community and influence decisions pertaining to climate change, security, trade, especially if it does not want to be left behind on the global stage. It will however require a significant amount of work and commitment from ASEAN leaders because of the many challenges ASEAN would have to meet for this to be successful.
Probably the strongest point in ASEAN’s favour is that it has already a proven record in terms of regional cooperation initiatives. While ASEAN has maintained its organisational integrity, it has added over recent years, new internal and external dimensions. The former includes the incipient ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), a group of ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) which has been particularly vocal in condemning Myanmar's human rights violations, and the "Track Three" ASEAN People's Assembly, an NGO that brings a variety of societal interest groups together to lobby ASEAN governments. ASEAN-dominated organizations encompass the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) on security matters, ASEAN+3 (Japan, South Korea and China), various ASEAN+1 dialogues with important states, the ASEAN-Europe meeting (ASEM), and most recently, regular dialogues with the Gulf Cooperation Council, Africa and Latin America. The newest and most contentious addition to the mix is the East Asian Summit (EAS) inaugurated in December 2005. The EAS brings ASEAN+3 countries together with India, Australia and New Zealand, all of which have signed ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) as a membership condition.
The outcomes of such a cooperative initiatives may be too early to effectively assess however one thing is clear: ASEAN has the ability to transcend the different cultural, economic and political heterogeneity of the various players in the region and has proven that it can work together with them within a very different kind of regionalism than that which has emerged in Europe or North America.
In addition, over the ensuing decades, security issues have become increasingly transnationals Money laundering, human trafficking, environmental degradation, multi-national river development, migratory maritime species, terrorism and piracy require multilateral regime building rather than ad hoc diplomacy. In theory, at least, organisations such as ASEAN have proven established procedures and decision-making rules whereby all governmental stakeholders have a voice. This could be very beneficial to ensure that the vulnerable and politically lightweight Pacific island members have a greater voice and representation than in other forums where they have instead displayed a high level of dependence on the US, Japan, Australia and NZ.
There have however been valid arguments against the effectiveness of ASEAN's role in any Asia Pacific regional group. It has been argued that stability in the region has little to do with distribution of power within the Asia-Pacific, particularly an international organisation of small and medium states confined to Southeast Asia, and, that the real locus of Asia-Pacific power, depends on relations with the major actors: such as the United States and Japan. Certainly in these discussion at this forum, will need to assess whether these major players should be considered an integral member of the region or merely an external power with extensive interests in the region.
However other arguments in favour of ASEAN’s involvement in the Pacific point out that the ASEAN engages in neither balancing or band wagoning with the major powerful countries but rather through multinational institutions, particularly ASEAN’s offspring (the ARF and APT), it promotes economic and political cooperation by promoting collaboration that provides benefits to all through reciprocity. However, the distribution of those benefits with the recent financial crisis including the 1997-98 Asian Financial Crisis and the recent global recession have had some set backs. Neither ASEAN, the ARF nor the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) were able to cope with financial distress in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. As for security, ASEAN also failed to mediate the 1999 East Timor crisis, the recent Burmese situation to name a few.
On the other hand, ASEAN is emerging as a nascent security community as a "we feeling" develops among its members and where more and more among member States its norms, values are being shared and evolving over time. Critics however argue that norms and values in ASEAN are too difficult to define and operate. For example values such as democracy, rule of law, are still vaguely defined within the Asian context. This makes linking vague norms to actual policy outcomes in ASEAN difficult as it is still based on bargaining among member States whose interests vary greatly even on principles as basic as democratic principles. How would such values translate under an Asia Pacific umbrella?
It has been argued that the Asia Pacific region was originally thought of as too vast and diverse to fit into one regional conceptual mould. Whilst there is some argument that ethnicity can be a factor in positive nation building the fact is that Asian approaches and values may be too different from those of the Pacific Islands.
Others argue that regions are not artificial constructions derived purely from geographical proximity but are products of history shaped by diverse forms of cultural economic and political interaction. At a time of rapid geopolitical and geo economic changes marked by increasing diffusion of power they provide useful avenues for redefining not only security but other models of co-operative behaviour –locus for socialisation norms and values transferred and new identities and beliefs formed.
For Example, there have been accelerated linkages between ASEAN and the European Union recently. This strong nexus that has evolved could happen because of the rich legacy that linked the two regions i.e. silk road, European colonialism. Yet there were still major challenges to overcome. For example there was the criticism that that Europe could not treat Asia as an undifferentiated mass – were problems with geographical delineation. Also the EU has faced its own dilemmas working with a region whose values in terms of human rights the rule of law democracy is clearly not to European standards leading ASEAN to reject European pressure on the question of East Timor as one example. Not withstanding these issues ASEAN and EU are working together and there is an ongoing dialogue process.
There is potential therefore for ASEAN to extend to Pacific nations also some mechanisms for principles of co-operation which are currently in the Pacific region ad hoc and issue arise dependent. However as with the EU need to have mutual reasons for achieving this and if not historical or geographical, perhaps an environmental economic interdependency may be one option.
Clearly the comprehensiveness and versatility for the multilateral process has been a distinguishing feature of the ASEAN process. Multilateral dialogue, whilst not always successful and marked by failures, has nevertheless provided some stability to the South East Asian region through strengthening separate ministries and bureaucracies i.e. foreign affairs, police health environment to coordinate their activities assessment and recommendations thus providing a more integrated way to regional policy making. The question is can ASEAN - a subregional coalition of like minded regimes facing similar intra security issues- realistically include Pacific nations and a wider regional community dealing with an increasingly interdependent and complex set of issues in response to the growing global pressures and in so doing, effectively promote a region wide dialogue?
