Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
As ASEAN moves closer to the 2015 deadline proposed in the ASEAN Community Roadmaps, the
question of what constitutes community in ASEAN becomes an important issue. This study uses
Constructivism, Institutionalism, and the process of Constitutive Localization to look at the existence and
evolution of collective identity among the organization's administrators, and how this affects cooperation.
By studying the documents that the organization produces, and other related discourse written about the
results, the changes in ASEAN's goals and nature can be seen. This shows the unique nature of ASEAN and
why the form of community and cooperation that has arisen in Southeast Asia may be the best fit for
such a diverse region.
Key Word: ASEAN Community, Cooperation, Constructivism, Constitutive Localization
Introduction
Almost fifty years ago, the foreign ministers of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the
Philippines met in Thailand to discuss plans for future regional cooperation. The outcome was the
Bangkok Declaration which laid the groundwork for the creation of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations. Despite previous failed attempts, the ministers saw the necessity of regional cooperation within
the socio-political environment of the time.
The forms of cooperation and reasons for it have changed over the years, but ASEAN has
continued to adapt itself and has survived to this day. This article is based on research done on how
community and cooperation have been conceptualized within the region, and how these have evolved
over the intervening years. It is primarily a descriptive study, with a focus on the administrative level of
ASEAN.
The importance of this paper rests on the unique system that ASEAN incorporates, why this
*
Masters Student, Master of Arts Program in International Relations, Thammasat University; Email:
bangkok.english@gmail.com
Historical Context
Before looking at previous research on ASEAN cooperation and community, it may be
enlightening to see the historical context of the region. Throughout Southeast Asia's history, there have
been multiple conflicts and conquests. Borders were generally nonexistent or very fluid, dependent on
the power and abilities of the leaders in those areas. As Western interest in the region increased, so did
their intervention into local politics and conflicts. By the end of the 19th century, many Western
European countries were assuming control of Southeast Asian kingdoms and sultanates. Colonialism
ranged across the region, and even kingdoms that were able to avoid it such as Thailand, had to change
how they defined their territorial sovereignty. Where before the conflicts were between warring kingdoms
and sultanates, the origins of the conflicts became European politics, and which colonial powers held
which territorial areas. Borders were formalized through western diplomatic law, and colonial states
emerged. (Tarling, 1993) During and after the decolonization after World War II, historic rivalries and hatred
occasionally rose again, while leaders of the new states tried to secure their domestic power through the
use of nationalism, which increased tensions between Southeast Asian states.
As well, the Cold War increased the external threats to the region, with the two great powers of
the United States and the Soviet Union staging proxy wars in small countries throughout Africa and Asia.
From this, the realization that smaller states could not trust great powers to protect them without
absorbing or using them gave rise to an interest in joining together to resist domestic interference from
these great powers.
The best example of this was the conference at Bandung in 1955. Twenty-nine countries
participated and found that they agreed on a few ideas which would improve their ability to develop
domestically rather than relying on great powers, and the threat of intervention and conflict which that
represented. They developed "The Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation" (MFA
Indonesia, 1955) which included the following principles:
1) Respect for the sovereign and territorial integrity of all nations
2) Recognition of the equality of all independent and sovereign nations
3) Abstention of interference in the domestic affairs of one state from another
4) Nonaggression against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state
5) The right of self defence, in either the single or collective sense
6) The right of the self-determination of all and a rejection of colonization
7) The peaceful settlement of all international disputes by negotiation, mediation, and arbitration
[34]
Literature Review
Much of the previous analysis of ASEAN has been critical of the informality and "soft" nature of
ASEAN policy. This soft regionalism and informality has been criticized as merely being a "talk shop" and
ineffective from a Western perspective. (Katsumata, 2006) Structural aspects of the European Union,
especially its laws and collective intervention within its member states has traditionally been cited as the
form that other regions must adopt. This opinion may be too narrow as Tamaki refers to the fact that the
critiques tend to focus on what ASEAN is not, rather than what it is. (Tamaki, 2006)
Examples of these critiques are seen in the writings of Leifer (1973), Emmers (2003), and Khoo.
Khoo states that the norms of ASEAN are weak and often ignored as can be seen in the routine violations
of them within the region. (Khoo, 2004) Ba retorts that these violations were largely committed by states
that had not yet joined, and more importantly, were the exception rather than the norm. (Ba, 2005) This
is an important distinction to make as it is easier to see where rules are broken rather than where they
are adhered to.
This opinion may have come from a belief in cultural universalism, where there are universal
standards that must be adhered to, regardless of historical or cultural context. (Donnelly, 2007) This may
be the basis of the misunderstanding of what ASEAN is, and why it exists. As was previously discussed, the
differences in concepts of governance which have been formed by history, religion, and culture may
preclude involvement in any organization that would force its members to act against this context, as was
seen in previous regional attempts. Thus, most of the states in Southeast Asia would never have joined a
stricter organization unless coerced by a greater power. (Acharya, 2009) Such attempts were proven not
to work as was seen in SEATO.
Consequently, ASEAN primarily exists to promote peace and understanding within the region, so
that each state can develop on its own, or with partners in the region. Even limited cooperation rarely
happened between the member states before ASEAN, so the restrictions and confidence building
measures are understandable. As well, ASEAN provided a means for small countries to join together to
[35]
Methodology
This study very obviously bases much of its analysis in Constructivism. Constructivism is
interested in what socially constructs individuals and groups. The basis of constructivist understanding of
community is focused on how interaction provides a complex set of influences on actors, which
promotes the idea of working together and sharing and inter-subjective knowledge that forms norms,
behaviours, and policy.
The major theoretical proposition of constructivism as defined by Mingst is that state behaviour is
shaped by elite beliefs, identities, and social norms, so they change the culture through their ideas and
practices. Therefore, national interests are the result of their social identities, and the object of study
should be the norms and practices of individuals and the society. (Mingst, 2003)
From this, one can see the shared beliefs and goals within the organization by looking at the
documents created by ASEAN. This is important because scholars such as Hall and Taylor show the role
that rules, informal practices, and institutional embeddedness play on the identity of actors, and their
decisions in the process used to create policy. Path dependency is one of the main limits on rational
actors, in that new decisions are based on what decisions were made in the past. Therefore, variables
such as exit costs and the ideational effect of past policy influences actors, and forms or adapts their
identities within the group. (Hall & Taylor, 1996)
Thus, if structure is defined as the rules, policies, norms, and practices of a group, this may affect
the actor's actions, decisions, and interactions. In this way, institutionalism can be used with
constructivism to show the importance of these institutions and the actors who both form them, and are
formed by them.
[36]
Findings
This section will first outline the ASEAN documents which are central to the discourse created by
ASEAN about itself. Then, an assessment of the community evolution based upon other articles and
assessments will be given.
ASEAN Documents
Using ASEAN documents as a base of analysis, ASEAN community evolution can be divided into
five eras.
1967-1976 - In these first years of ASEAN, the focus is on confidence building and a statement of
the purposes and goals of ASEAN. The Bangkok Declaration (1967) and The Zone of Peace, Freedom and
Neutrality Declaration (1971) are merely declarative, and are a way for the original members to outline
their shared beliefs, and their solidarity in resisting external influence.
1976-1992 - This era begins with the first ASEAN summit and its two defining documents. The
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976) is the first ASEAN treaty, and it formalizes what had previously
been declared. It does not explicitly explain how it will achieve its goals, but it provides a code of
[38]
Implications
Is what currently exists in ASEAN a form of community? Has ASEAN created enough
interdependence that it can move away from the principles of the ASEAN Way? Will ASEAN only become
a true community by following the level of regulation and enforcement of a region like the EU?
This study has shown that the answer to the first question is yes. If community is defined by the
list of indicators outlined by Kaina and Karolewski, ASEAN definitely has precious commonalities that are
based on the ASEAN Way, but have expanded in the principles and policies that the members adhere to.
The belief in a common fate may be the main reason that ASEAN still exists. If the member states didn't
see any benefits to their national interests, or if any policy was more offensive than the exit costs, ASEAN
would have fallen apart. However, the member states have seen enough political and economic benefits
to keep them interested in continued membership.
The aspects of human interaction, maintenance or enhancement of self-esteem, and solidarity
were especially clear in the beginning of ASEAN. Human interaction built the confidence to continue
increasing the levels of interdependence, and the self-esteem of the state is based on legitimacy both in
and outside of the state. Membership has promoted legitimacy externally through economic interest from
foreign states and internally through domestic stability.
Solidarity may have been one of the elements that formed ASEAN, in that they had to show a
united front to defend from external great power interference. Lastly, mutual commitment and especially
personal sacrifice are the weakest elements, but these may be the elements that propel actors from a
sense of "belonging to" a group to "belonging with" their fellow group members. This may be the next
step that will culminate in 2015. So, the collective identity and collective action that define a community
already exists, but it may be a "thin" form of community right now.
This is the crux of the second and third questions. Will ASEAN become a stronger community if it
discards the ASEAN Way, or will that destroy what has already been created? Although there is no way to
know, forcing compliance to the elements of the ASEAN community goals may create enough tension to
push members beyond the exit costs and dissolve ASEAN if regulations are enforced. What seems to be
the more likely result is a fluid "re-imagining" of the community goals, or a delay towards the original 2020
date. In this way, the slow and incremental development of a deeper community may be allowed to
evolve, which may still be the better choice for ASEAN. In this author's opinion, the focus of the region
should be the development of infrastructure and economic development in the less developed member
countries. This would go far in removing much of the current friction that ASEAN is experiencing.
Therefore, further study on development may be the next step in plotting a course for ASEAN
community formation. As well, how ASEAN will deal with the 2015 deadline will be an interesting topic to
[42]
References
Acharya, A. 2009. Whose Ideas Matter?: Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Cornell University
Press.
ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. 2008.
ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. 2009.
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint. 2009.
Ba, A. 2005. On Norms, Rule Breaking, and Security Communities: a Constructivist Response.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 5 (2): 255-266.
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Declaration on the South China Sea. 1992.
Donnelly, J. 2007. The Relative Universality of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 29 (2): 281-306.
Emmers, R. 2003. Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. 2004. Critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Hall, P. & Taylor, R. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political studies 44 (5):
936-957.
Jones, D. & Smith, M. 2003. ASEANs Imitation Community. Orbis 46 (1): 93-109.
Jones, L. 2010. ASEAN's Unchanged Melody? The Theory and Practice Of Non-Interferencein Southeast
Asia. The Pacific Review 23 (4): 479-502.
Kaina, V. & Karolewski, I. 2009. EU governance and European identity.
Katsumata, H. 2006. Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum: Constructing a Talking Shop or a
Norm Brewery?. The Pacific Review 19 (2): 181-198.
Khoman, T. 1992. ASEAN Conception and Evolution. The ASEAN Reader xvii-xxii.
Khoo, N. 2004. Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community: A Review Essay. International Relations
of the Asia-Pacific 4 (1): 35-46.
Leifer, M. 1973. The ASEAN States: No Common Outlook. International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944), 600-607.
Lwin, M. 2001. The Achievements and Outlook of ASEAN Free Trade Area: An Overview.
Melucci, A. 1995. The Process Of Collective Identity. Social movements and culture 4: 41-63.
Mingst, K. 2003. Essentials of International Relations. Norton.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Indonesia (ed.). 1955. The Final Communique of the Asian-African
[43]
[44]