With so many examples of foreign meddling in Asia, it is little wonder that states in the east Asian region feel as if they need a regional bloc to maintain the strength of the region and ensure that foreign powers no longer exert the power they once commanded. That was one major reason that led to the establishment of The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN in 1967. Economically and militarily vulnerable, ASEAN members sought both political and economic stability as they sought to rebuild their governing mechanisms still affected by the legacy of colonialism. Additionally, the region was politically volatile as communist revolutions in China and Vietnam and feared expansionist policies in Indonesia that could affect smaller states.
Despite a mission that seemed doomed from the beginning, ASEAN has survived the rise of China, withdraw of U.S. bases in the Philippines, Asian economic crisis, and the recent uprisings in Burma. Much of its success is more economic than political, though.
Initially, it was difficult to imagine ASEAN as an effective trade cooperative with so many states all competing with each other for markets, especially when their major trade efforts were concentrated in Japan. However, ASEAN has been able to approach trade deals with other blocs like the United States and Europe with collective strength and eliminate some of the tariffs ASEAN states were charging each other, creating a free trade zone for ASEAN members. This encourages more trade among the states and helps diversify markets. In fact, Japan is no longer the prime destination for ASEAN goods and they are no longer dependent on Japan for their livelihood.
There are some limitations to ASEAN from a western perspective, though. First, ASEAN is inherently wary of foreign power, as outlined in its charter. Perhaps more importantly, it is wary of any intervention – even among fellow ASEAN members – in its member affairs. For instance, the recent Myanmar uprisings were not criticized strongly by ASEAN, not was the Myanmar government’s response to the devastating flooding there. This has meant that ASEAN is not usually viewed as a advocate for human rights in general, as this would constitute interference in other governments. Most of all, ASEAN is mostly politically impotent as a intergovernmental bloc. It’s most important accomplishments are mostly economic.
It would appear that the Southeast Asian priorities at the moment are and have been maintaining political stability regardless of the consequences for human rights (protection of common good over the protection of the common individual) and economics. Economically, they have diversified their markets, but still remain indirectly dependent on great foreign powers. In any case, ASEAN is an organization with limited potential that must grow into a mission as it goes. Obviously, with such a culturally diverse and fragile relationship, members must tread lightly or risk the organization falling apart. That perhaps explains why it is not an intergovernmental organization like that one is accustomed to in the West, like the NAFTA, the EU, or NATO.
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
Of all the reading for this week, your post was probably the most clear on ASEAN. It ran side by side with my overall feelings for this organization. "For now", as you stated ASEAN is good for Southeast Asia because it at least forces each nation to keep in mind that they are a nation-state among other nation-states and not in a vacuum. North Korea is a gloomy example of what can happen to a nation that forgets its place in the world.
AntwortenLöschenI believe ASEAN is exactly what it needs to be though and for its survival should not be much more. Sounds cryptic, but I look at the farce of what has become the UN Security Council. This band of letter writers has produced no meaningful change for their globe as long as I have been cognizant of them. As a member of the U.S. military, I have worked under UN initiatives and can tell you first hand that I may as well be working blind folded with both hands behind my back. The failure of the UN is their attempt to interfere with internal problems and solve neighboring nation issues that have been in place for years (India/Pakistan, Korean Peninsula, Middle East, etc.)
If ASEAN ever expanded its scope to regional security (like the UNSC) by influencing political change or internal issues (human rights), ASEAN would crumble. The addition of more nations has certainly not helped. Had ASEAN established a strong moral baseline at its inception, they may have been able to invite newcomers after a strenuous interview process to ensure their internal issues matched the fabric of the organization. However, the Asian cultural mindset of "consensus" on social relationships took charge when ASEAN was formed and will ensure it continues as an economic glue stick in the region and nothing more.
Why though would it crumble if it were to expand in the same direction as we see in Western organizations, like the EU?
AntwortenLöschenBy the same token, what sort of lessons might the EU gain from the approach of ASEAN that would make it more effective?
Well, in my opinion, the EU is economically based. It is when these organizations try out their hand at security where it gets tricky because ethnic history comes into play, mistrust of other nations pasts rights and wrongs come into play, etc. The UN as an organization is fine; however, NATO is well beyond its prime and the UNSC is simply a joke. As long as ASEAN stays within its boundaries (economics) they should succeed as the EU is proving in the west.
AntwortenLöschenI think ASEAN is already fragile, held together purely by economic interests. The EU is already under tremendous stress during the current economic crisis, but shares a common religion, common respect for human rights, common interest in trade, and common history (in some ways). And despite this, it is still very fragile (look at EU military missions, disagreements over national debts, and the common currency). So there are many things binding the EU together on many levels. Those binding ASEAN are few and purely economic, not social.
AntwortenLöschenAs for what the EU could learn from ASEAN, it depends on your priorities. If it were to embrace nations into an economic cooperations that have poor human rights records or high corruption, then I'm not sure how the ASEAN model would be able to improve upon the EU. The whole idea of the EU is an evolution of free trade agreements into an idea of Europeaness (culture, respect for rule of law and human rights, free trade, and defense). That explains why Belarus and others are not EU members, and why they are very wary of states like Romania and Bulgaria because of their coruption and lax laws). The whole idea of ASEAN is non-intervention in sovereign affairs...it is a band of states seeking some interaction and trade coordination. The EU is an idea that actively seeks to shape the bahavior of non-member states through passive example. For example, if Belarus wanted to join the EU, it would fundamentally have to alter its state behavior and not only become economically intergrated, but socially as well. There is a big difference between ASEAN and the EU.
AntwortenLöschen