| ONE
DAY SEMINAR ON First Session Q & A : DR. DAVID DENOON: In terms of practical steps forward, an incremental approach to rebuilding ASEAN’s strength is important. Economically, the problem with increasing trade in the region has been due to lack of credit. Also, since the crisis in 1997, there has been the issue of the eclipse of APEC by the WTO. With several big countries proceeding with a bilateral focus, there will be a gradual increase of trade within ASEAN. In the security area, there is no immediate external threat. Terrorism is not on a broad scale, and cross-national military cooperation is not required. Politically, ASEAN has been a success, if you look at the region in the 1960s. The expansion to the ASEAN-10 simply cannot compete with the top-tier, original members of ASEAN. The most promising would be to revitalize the ASEAN+3. ASEAN was a potential tiger, but had unrealistic expectations. Original vision should be kept as unifying theme SHAUN NADINE: Q: What specific steps should be taken by ASEAN as an organization to reach out to civil society to encourage them to participate in ASEAN’s programmes, towards ensuring the achievement of the organization’s goals?
East Timor: dilly-dallying by ASEAN led to an external force becoming a major player. The question of interference remains a critical point within ASEAN. Transnational issues: terrorism, SARS, haze, etc are convincing ASEAN that if it does not deal with these issues, someone else will and will take the initiative away from them. That should be important within the issue of the ASEAN security community. As concerns making ASEAN more people-oriented, this has been addressed since the early 80s. The only way is to make the organization more people-oriented organization is to make the decisions of ASEAN affect them. You can target groups of people, such as students, tourists and the business community. ASEAN economic policies must have consequences for the business sector.
DR. ALAGAPPA : DAVID DENOON: The stage of ASEAN’s development at which it would critically review the policies of its members is still far away. That is why I suggest ASEAN should look outward and focus its intent and its role more in developing its diplomatic initiatives within the region and with the world at large. It is easy to adopt a formula of 10-X, or whatever the number is, that has a positive initiative to pursue initiatives that benefit individual members with outside partners. The internal role of ASEAN is where attention ought to be directed. SHAUN NADINE: How does ASEAN increase its influence? This goes back to the framework on which ASEAN stands. If the economic uncertainties are so substantial, you cannot assume that you would have confidence in outside states. In terms of the planning within ASEAn, there is a fundamental challenge to ASEAN as a group: the bilateral initiatives. . They represent a different vision of how the region can be formed. To what extent does ASEAN want to move toward a united SE Asia. That might be a viable goal in 20 or 30 years, not in five. Groups such as this might want to create, say, among high school students or young professionals a sense of a region. In the 60s and 70s, ASEAN’s goal was essentially to mitigate problems among States. Focus was on States and limiting things that States might do, and that was successful. ASEAN is in an equilibrium now because there is no sense of creating, or how to develop an upward sense of unity. The first element in having a clear platform is having a good base to stand on. Because the economies and the political turmoils in SE Asia are so substantial, making large pronouncements does not strike outsiders as credible. I would say the first focus has to be internal. On that you could build a broader regional identity. I would say be a 10/20 year measure. In the same way, creating the elite linkages has succeeded: the ICIS and research institutes are present, but for the next level of integration, you have to have a sense that you are not just a member of just one country.
There are many basic ideas available on how increasing the overall efficacy of ASEAN could be done. The problem is whether the political will exists. How do you create a region when, internally, most states are still dealing with their individual problems such as instability. People identify themselves as belonging to a lot of organizations; ASEAN is just one of those. It is easy to point out all the obstacles to making ASEAN more effective or building a sense of regionalism, but at the same time, those obstacles should not be underestimated.
ASEAN should be judged by criteria more relevant to SE Asia. The approach should be that ASEAN does not go too fast for those who wish to go slow, or too slow for those who wish to go fast. DR. AMITAV ACHARYA: With reference to getting the people involved, Indonesia should take this matter up. ASEAN was served originally by the elitist method, but the elite thing has lasted for too long. An elite start in itself is not wrong, but the elite have to be legitimate. They often are not representative, and could become a liability. The old “Asian Way,” by which ministers picked up their phones and resolved problems, has been overcome. The other thing is that the people must be brought in sooner or later, and ASEAN should make efforts to include the media, NGOs, etc. The NGO community in SE Asia has always been at loggerheads with government, but some of them have always been ready to work with government and they should be brought in for dialogue and given something in return. The OSCE has a good example here in something they call the “human dimension.” Governments have been opting for the bilateral approach rather than the multilateral because they do not want to confront the Seattle kind of protest. Bilateral agreements bypass this hurdle, but ultimately that is a mistake. This is the challenge for Indonesia. With reference to making ASEAN better or restoring some of its glory, it should focus on internal relationships and avoid grand visions, like leading the ARF. A security community is about that. “Regional solutions to regional problems” is not always workable, although it is a good slogan. ASEAN should go back to collective bargaining: act as a group, and engage the US multilaterally so as to be able to take advantage of its huge resources. DR. ALAGAPPA: On the point of being inward-looking, if ASEAN does not
begin to address the key issues, others will emerge to take on those issues.
Set your house in order, but not be DR. DONALD CRONE: As a broker institution, ASEAN cannot change the views of the big powers. If ASEAN is to be relevant again, it must address quickly economic growth in East Asia, through the instrument of broker. What are security issues within SE Area? All speakers
are agreed there is no immediate external threat. The issue is how to
deal with terrorism. That is confined to a small number of countries,
and there is nothing wrong with a small number of countries dealing with
issues that affect them.
|