ONE DAY SEMINAR ON
“ASEAN COOPERATION: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
IN THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SITUATION”
New York, June 3, 2003

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok by the five original Member Countries, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined on 8 January 1984, Vietnam on 28 July 1995, Laos and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999. The ASEAN region has a population of about 500 million, a total area of 4.5 million square kilometers, a combined gross domestic product of US$737 billion, and a total trade of US$ 720 billion.

The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: (i) to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian nations, and (ii) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is recognized throughout the world as one of the most notable regional organizations in existence. Founded by five of the leading countries in Southeast Asia in 1967, its membership has increased to the number that the founding fathers wished to see: 10 Southeast Asian member states. Along with this enlargement, ASEAN has diversified and expanded its cooperation in various fields.
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, on 16 February 2000 stated "Today, ASEAN is not only a well-functioning, indispensable reality in the region. It is a real force to be reckoned with far beyond the region. It is also a trusted partner of the United Nations in the field of development…" He also mentioned during the ASEAN-UN Summit, Bangkok, on 12 February 2000, “that ASEAN’s commitment to multilateral action is visible today in virtually every sphere of human activity.”

In the early stages, ASEAN functioned rigorously as a solid, well-regarded regional arrangement. Not only did it succeed in coping with contending differences among its members, it also promoted cohesion through visionary and concrete programs. As time went by, it further succeeded in promoting dialogue partnerships, as well as in security cooperation matters by engaging key countries outside the Association in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).
Currently, some observers critically view ASEAN as a “sunset” regional organization and even describe it as in decline, drifting apart and ineffective. Additionally, domestic changes and the current international situations confront ASEAN with new challenges and prospects. Thus, it is timely to look back at its work and explore its future activities.

In this connection, Indonesia will serve as Chair of the ASEAN Standing Committee for one year, beginning in July 2003. Therefore, it is with this background that the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations in New York organized “Seminar on ASEAN Cooperation: Challenges and Prospects in the Current International Situation”, on Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations, 325 East 38th Street (between 1st and 2nd Avenue), New York - 10016.
The meeting aimed to explore the challenges faced by ASEAN, and identify prospects and opportunities to this regional organization. It also aimed at providing input for the Indonesian Government when it assumes the Chairmanship of the ASEAN Standing Committee in July 2003.

Participants included representatives of ASEAN and ASEAN dialogue partners missions to the UN in New York, UN Secretariat, NGOs and other interested and relevant invitees. Resource persons included experts and practitioners from universities, governments and think-tank.

The seminar was conducted on Tuesday, June 3, 2003. After the Opening Remarks by H.E. Ambassador Slamet Hidayat/Charge d’Affaires, the Keynote Speech was delivered by Dr. Amitav Acharya (IDSS, Singapore), followed by the First Session on “Critical Overview of ASEAN: Its Genesis and Achievement” where Dr. Muthiah Alagappa (Director of East-West Center, Washington); and Dr. Donald K. Crone (Politics and International Relations, Scripps College/The Claremont Colleges); presented their views as presenters with Dr. Shaun Narine (Department of Political Science, St. Thomas University, Fredericton, NB, Canada) and Dr. David Denoon (Professor, Politics and Economics, New York University) as Commentators.

The first session was chaired by Dr. Desra Percaya (Indonesian Mission).
The second Session was on “The Future of ASEAN: Responding to Current International Situations” with Presenters: Dr. Rizal Sukma (CSIS, Jakarta); Dr. Zakaria Ahmad (Tun Abdul Razak, Ohio University) Dr. Sheldon W. Simon (Arizona State University), and Commentators: Dr. Ann Marie Murphy (East Asian Institute, Columbia University, New York); Mr. Ernest Z. Bower (President, US-ASEAN Business Council, Washington DC). It was chaired by Mr. Yuri Thamrin (Indonesian Mission). At the Closing Session Dr. Amitav Acharya presented conclusions and recommendations of the seminar.
********

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As the rapporteur, Dr. Amitav Acharya expressed his enthusiasm not just for the discussion on the idea of creating a security community but for Indonesia’ readiness to convene such a meeting prior to its chairmanship of ASEAN. Synthesizing the discussion, he made four broad points, as follows

1. The Historical Context of ASEAN

ASEAN was Asia’s first regional political institution, and was itself the center or base of other institutions that developed, such as APEC, ARF, and ASEAN+3. Even neighboring regional organization SAARC was created on the ASEAN model in 1984. ASEAN was a “beacon,” and in historical context, ASEAN is an “organization that spawned other organizations and promoted regional cooperation.” Historically, the challenges and self-criticism that ASEAN continually raises is possible only because it is a mature organization under mature leadership.

Moreover, ASEAN prevented South-East Asia from becoming the “Balkans of the Orient.” In the 1950s and 1960s, domestic instability and the problems of new nation-states might have turned the region in on itself, which ASEAN helped to prevent. One of ASEAN’s most significant achievements was “the management of the Cambodia conflict at a time when the great powers were not interested….ASEAN kept the peace process alive until its logical conclusion in the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement.” Other concrete achievements include: drawing Japanese investment into South-East Asia and creating conditions for economic growth. ASEAN has performed very well over the last thirty-five years, and will clearly continue to do so, despite the setbacks in the region in the past six years.

2. Challenges before ASEAN

ASEAN faces two major kinds of challenges. There are external, transnational challenges such as terrorism and American unilateralism, which demand a response from the Association. The first kind of challenge includes issues that are not of ASEAN’s making, but come from outside, where ASEAN becomes a “victim.” Many transnational challenges fall into this category. The Asian economic crisis, for example, had more to do with the forces of globalization than with any event internal to ASEAN. Terrorism, too, is a global issue that affects ASEAN, which has vulnerabilities and weaknesses that can be aggravated by external factors. The changing global order, exemplified by American unipolarity or unilateralism, is another issue not created by ASEAN, but one to which it must respond.

Internal challenges spring from the gap between initiatives and their implementation. The Association needs to resolve the issue of its style of leadership and determine whether it will remain faithful to its original mandate of non-interference which may harm its reputation for decisive effective leadership. But non-interference (or non-intervention) was part of ASEAN’s original mandate, and was viewed as a “moral doctrine” for developing countries in the 1950s, as an argument against colonialism. Today non-interference is seen rather as something that makes ASEAN less effective, or as a way to seal bad practices from the criticisms of the international community.

3. Visions for the Future

There are many possible futures for ASEAN, perhaps the most important is for it to become a security community. These visions for the organizations included ASEAN as a rule-based order rather than a power-based order. But the most resounding idea was ASEAN as a security community, whether it is “a minimal community or a mature community,” and whether ASEAN explicitly calls itself a security community. What is important is to take this concept as an organizing building block, to try to understand what it involves, and to try to go in that direction.

Another vision worthy of attention is the idea of the Association expanding to incorporate civil society. To strengthen unity within the Association, ties among constituents should be strengthened, with a visionary Secretary-General at the helm.

4. Building the security community

Tactical advice to make ASEAN a security community:

(a) Focus on internal relationships between ASEAN member states, without becoming distracted by “grand visions.”
(b) Proceed incrementally.
(c) Reach out to people by involving civil society.

In order to build ASEAN institutionally and politically, concrete steps should include:

(a) Strengthening its Secretariat of ASEAN.
(b) Building the mandate of the Secretary-General to do more than just simple management of the Secretariat. The incumbent should be proactive.
(c) Promoting the “ASEAN minus X approach,” within the ASEAN framework and mandate. Despite the criticisms around the “coalition of the willing” approach, ASEAN’s increased size should encourage acceptance and use of this concept.
(d) Promoting political and defense cooperation. There has to be sensitivity about the issues involving joint petrol, surveillance and Defense Ministers’ meetings. There is no single common threat for ASEAN member states that requires joint planning, but a meeting for Defense Ministers to talk about common problems would be a useful, progressive step
(e) Assistance to member states in dealing with their internal conflicts. ASEAN could provide “positive help,” such as support to peace-building efforts in Aceh. These kinds of efforts could take place on a unilateral or bilateral level.
(f) Development of a rapid response capacity at the ASEAN Secretariat. The Association needs to be able to respond quickly and effectively to assist all its members as they face transnational problems like infectious diseases and terrorism. These efforts should strengthen the security community.

Because peace is a universally necessary condition, ASEAN could justifiably add security to its mandate. There is no reason why ASEAN cannot aspire to a situation where the member countries rule out the use of force in problem-solving and also develop a sense of collective identity, a kind of ‘we’ feeling.

ASEAN will always have a diverse membership – one of the most diverse in the world -- with different political, religious, cultural, and geographical systems (such as maritime and mainland communities). But ASEAN has the history and experience to move towards a security community, however it is termed, where its members work together for peaceful resolutions, collaborate on programs for economic interdependence and integration, and create a social sense of enduring collectivity.

<<