ASEAN and the Principle of Non-Interference

The principle of non-interference fulfilled a very important function early in the ASEAN’s existence. It helped preserve the unity within the organization despite the volatile diplomatic relations among its members. For instance, at around the time of the Association’s formation, Indonesia and the Philippines had each raised territorial claims over some of the territories of the then nascent Malaysia (Katanyu, 2003). Indonesia even went so far as to institute a policy of confrontasi against the fledgling nation, and this would have easily escalated into a violent confrontation. Fortunately, this scenario was averted due in part to the principle of non-interference, which counseled ASEAN nations to respect the sovereignty of fellow ASEAN members. Had the principle not been in place in the early decades of the Association’s existence, the ASEAN would have long met the fate of its predecessors, e.g. ASA and MAPHILINDO.

Aside from abating the tensions resulting from territorial disputes, the principle had also allowed member states, most of whom had just emerged from colonial domination, to pursue their respective nation-building projects without external interference (Katsumata, 2003). Thus, the importance of this principle in the history of ASEAN cannot be overstated.

But, as Bob Dylan said, “the times, they are a-changing.” In recent years, many scholars started to call for the abandonment of this long-cherished ASEAN diplomatic principle. They point out that the non-interference principle stands in the way of forging closer integration among members, which result to the weakening of the Association’s credibility in the eyes of the international community (Katanyu, 2006; Layador, Mahiwo, & Luhulima, 2013). This was illustrated by the case of Myanmar, which saw ASEAN being subjected to pressure from US and EU for its supposed failure to make Myanmar exert effort to improve its human rights record and follow the democratic path (Katanyu, 2006).

Personally, I think that if the ASEAN states believe in the importance of regional cooperation in the attainment of regional peace and prosperity, they must be willing enough to make sacrifices to make it work. In this instance,  a part of their sovereignty must constitute such sacrifice. As Dr. Sylvano Mahiwo ( 2013) explained, the viability of ASEAN depends on the extent to which member states are willing to sacrifice parts of their sovereignty.

All this notwithstanding, I think it would be a unhistorical, if not a grave error, if the process of change, i.e. the ultimate abandonment of the principle of non-interference, should be pursued hastily at the expense of member states who have more stakes in it, i.e. those countries that have not yet achieved the stability and prosperity which the older ASEAN members already have. In other words, why should countries like Singapore or Malaysia deny to Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam the “protection” afforded by the principle of non-interference, when they themselves enjoyed it for a very long time in the early stages of their national development?

References:

Layador, M. G., Mahiwo, S. D., Luhulima, C.P.F. (2013). ASEAN studies II: Advanced ASEAN studies. UP Open University. Katanyuu, R. (2006). Beyond non-interference in ASEAN: The association’s role in Myanmar’s national reconciliation and democratization. Asian Survey,46(6), 825-845.

Katsumata, H. (2003). Reconstruction of diplomatic norms in southeast Asia: The case for strict adherence to the” ASEAN Way”. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 104-121.