The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Challenges
and Responses
(M.C. Abad, Jr)
-
-
ASEAN was form in
1967 with its five original members: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, and they agreed that ASEAN should be open to all Southeast
Asian state, but before ASEAN able to do that it already faced many political issues:
Vietnam war and Vietnam intervention to Cambodia. ASEAN member then expanded with Brunei
Darussalam joined on 8 January 1984,
o
ASEAN also build
relation with non-member countries: EC,
-
There was a major
policy shift (econ. cooperation à econ. Integration, security dialogue and cooperation
from bilateral to multilateral)
-
Create
enlargement of ASEAN’s organization’s structure and mechanism:
o
Economic
enlargement:
§
1967-1975:
dominated by foreign minister
§
1975 : Economic Ministers Meeting (ministerial
meeting then expand to other area, there are 20 kind of ministerial meeting
now)
§
1995 : annual meeting of ASEAN leaders. This is the most important event in ASEAN’s
calendar.
This
development transformed ASEAN from a diplomatic organization à comprehensive regime for regional governance of
common affairs.
o
Political:
§
1984: ASEAN
institute for strategic and International Studies à participate actively in processes of conflict
management (i.e workshop on managing potential conflict in the
o
Non-economic and
political
§
Civil society
organization established regional alliances (ASEAN Regional Meeting on Human
Rights held in
Challenges
-
Economic
interdependence
o
The 1997
Financial Crisis created the need of interdependence in Southeast Asia, ASEAN
recognized that for the region to recover, it needed the support of the
international community ( 15-17 May 1998 urged the IMF to monitor effectively
capital flows, including short-term capital flows, with a view to provide
information to the market and promoting stability.
o
Also secured the
support of other multilateral organizations, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation and the Asia-Europe Meeting.
The Asia-Europe Meeting issued a special statement on the need for
reforms in the international monetary and financial system, focusing on crisis
prevention and reducing the vulnerability of domestic financial systems to
potential shocks, including speculation-induced instability.
o
For preventive
measure, the ASEAN Finance Ministers began consideration of a region-wide
economic surveillance mechanism, this was installed since Oct 1998, and this
designed as an early warning mechanism to prevent the recurrence or mitigate
the impact of future financial crisis.
o
Recognizing the
economic interdependence of East Asia, ASEAN welcomed the Chinese initiative to
hold regular consultations among Finance and Central Bank Deputies of ASEAN,
o
There was a
realization of forces of globalization, particularly the worldwide movement of
capital, necessitate an equally effective multilateral supervisory and
regulatory regime to mitigate its impact particularly on developing economies.
-
Transboundary
environmental pollution
o
1997-98, Brunei
Darussalam,
§
The ASEAN
Environment Ministers adopted the Regional Haze Action Plan in 1997, which
focused more on building on the ASEAN Plan of Action on Transboundary
Pollution, which in itself was considered a ‘landmark’ regional
initiative. ASEAN found obstacles to
make this plan into realization because it didn’t have the resources and didn’t
have dedicated regional institution and binding arrangements for managing
transboundary pollution.
§
§
The government’s
ability and willingness to enforce the law is very important in preventing land
and forest fires, a matter that is beyond ASEAN’s capability.
o The increasing trade and transport of raw materials, fossils fuels and commodities across the region’s busy shipping lanes has contributed to marine pollution through oil spills and ocean dumping à need to adopt and enforce regional environmental standard and compliance.
o Still there’s limitation what regional organization can do to make sure individual state implement these agreements because of the non-interference policy.
-
o ASEAN
was caught unprepared for the violence and the consequent humanitarian
situation because of its unconditional support for
o A wake up call for ASEAN à brought the debate on the concept and practice of humanitarian intervention to the region.
o Other approach could be done without giving up ASEAN way by ‘quiet diplomacy’ and a non-confrontational stance.
Implications:
- standard of governance:
o needed to realize the ASEAN 2020
o institutes measures toward greater transparency and accountability in financial and economic systems
o bridging between multinational corporations and the region where they belong
- regional institution
o will be confronted with problems beyond ASEAN’s control
o resist international pressure for UN-sanctioned intervention when the situation warranted it
o regional institution need to be capable of responding swiftly and decisively
>>ASEAN need
structural changes in order to keep up with issues its facing<<
ASEAN Down the “
(Morten F. Greve)
This article basically compares two author and their
perspectives about ASEAN.
Narine
-
ASEAN arose out
of a specific political threat rather that a profound sense of regional
identity or a wider commonality of interest
-
Protection of
national sovereignty as an ‘
-
ASEAN has failed:
o
Vietnamese
intervention in
o
-
ASEAN owes its
economic growth to a combination of propitious international circumstances and
astute national policies.
-
ASEAN’s
development is driven by a sovereignty-obsessed politics of regional security
and influence, not a politics of economic interdependence and integration
Paul J. Davidson
-
emphasized on
ASEAN’s current institutional and legal framework
-
ASEAN is under
considerable pressure to move towards more binding and legalized economic
integration.
-
The member state’
overriding sovereignty concerns mean that economic integration development is
unlikely in the foreseeable future.
ASEAN
is likely to remain a weakly-formalized intergovernmental regime with limited
effectiveness due to the member states’ deeply-felt concern with the
preservation of internal and external sovereignty.
The Concept of Functional Differentiation in
Integration Studies
-
Self-interested
ASEAN governments are in control of the organization’s development, and
state-based politics is thus accorded with an analytical primacy.
-
Economic regional
integration has economic, legal and political dimension à Need to position the concept of an emerging
international functional differentiation more prominently in the study of
international economic governance.
-
An effective
cross-border economic integration crucially depends on an upgrading of legal
institutions and rule structures à devote more attention to the distinctive economic and
legal dimensions of economic regional integration.
>>ASEAN need to differentiate between economic
and legal dimensions of economic regional integration in order to develop its
economy<<
UN University Lectures: 18
This article basically compares how EU and ASEAN work
from the point of view of the ambassador of
|
|
EU |
ASEAN |
|
Motivation |
Generated by the wish to
overcome lasting contention amongst the founding members |
External threat of
expanding communism |
|
Integration |
The scope of economic
cooperation is much greater than the custom union |
Free flow of persons is
nearly achieved |
Institutional set-up
EU has four main institutions: Council of Ministers,
European Commission, European Parliament, and the Court of Justice. ASEAN has Council of Ministers, but it meets
once a year, and to deal with the increasingly complex challenges facing ASEAN,
and shapes common positions amongst member states, but it does not have a
legislative function. The founding
treaty of ASEAN describes only the possibility of setting up a high
council. The founding treaty of EU made
possible of the creation of another institution to manage EU members state
behavior.
Challenges of ASEAN and EU
ASEAN and EU have common aspiration when it comes to
external relations. Regional integration
would be a best stepping stone for globalization. But in terms of internal workings, each
organization operate quite different, specially when it come to the enlargement
of the organization
>>ASEAN integration was based on ASEAN’s Way
(non-interference), each member respect and can’t impose its will on fellow
members, EU was based on a spilled over cooperation which going towards
integrated European<<
It seemed that ASEAN’s biggest problem is its
hesitation of giving up a chunk of its member states sovereignty but insist in
integrating
Discussion Questions: