The Dynamics of the ASEAN Community-Building Project

Over the years, people from different sectors of the Philippine society have registered their opposition to the deepening integration among ASEAN states. While most of these concerns are valid, they fail to take into account the dynamics that have led to the said development. An understanding of these dynamics can help dispel these misgivings about the direction that the organization has taken. Such understanding can be attained through the study of the different aspects of ASEAN such as history, religion, trade, conflicts, and technology.

History can provide a framework with which to understand how ASEAN developed into the community it is known today. For instance, the ASEAN method of resolving conflicts as it is practiced at present may be viewed in light of past events, e.g. the colonial experiences of most ASEAN members (Katsumata, 2003). In the same manner, the move for closer economic integration among ASEAN members may be better explained through analysis of the historical events of late 1980’s e.g. the end of Cold War and the resulting political normalcy in many former socialist countries (Akrasanee & Stifel, 1994). Lastly, colonial and postwar policies also shaped the economy of ASEAN members states into what they are at present, which in turn, determine to a large extent the character of intra-ASEAN economic interactions (Booth, 2007).

The study of the role that religion has played in the affairs of ASEAN member states can also aid the understanding of the dynamics of ASEAN regional community-building. Theoretically, religion may be used to shed light on the relative poverty of some of the ASEAN members (Grier, 1997). One could also see it as one of the reasons in the rise of various conflicts in the region e.g. those between Thailand and Malaysia and in the Philippines, and may provide a framework for anti-Western attitude among Muslim ASEAN members (Houben, 2003). Finally, religion has served to legitimize the state in the eyes of the populace as in the case of Thailand, Cambodia, and Burma (Stuart-Fox, 2006). Such religious impacts, in turn, shape the character of intra- and extra-ASEAN relations, as well as the politico-economic characteristics of member states.

Trade has also helped shape the character of ASEAN relations. For instance, in the early years of the organization, the interest of some ASEAN member states to establish closer trade relations with developed countries impelled the association to institute dialogue processes with the latter. In the same way, the desire to foster closer intra- and extra-regional trade relations prompted ASEAN to push for uniformity of customs procedures, the promotion of uniform product standards, the improvement of transportation linkages, etc (Severino, 2007; Bowles, 1997). Lastly, patterns of post-war trade largely determined the economy of ASEAN member states, which in turn, constrained the ASEAN regional community-building project (Booth, 2007).

Conflicts have also shaped the ASEAN community. In fact, it is one of the most important factors in the development of the ASEAN group solidarity. For instance, the formation of the association in the late 1960’s would not have occurred had not the tension between Indonesia and Malaysia been eased out with the transformation of Indonesia in 1965 -1966 (Severino, 2007). Inter-regional conflicts also helped shaped the diplomatic culture among ASEAN members, as exemplified by the adoption of the non-interference policy by the association. For example, prior to the creation of ASEAN, Malaysian authorities gave assistance to rebels in Indonesia, and in order to forestall similar incidences, the ASEAN Way, which was characterized by the policy of non-interference, was adopted by the organization(Katsumata, 2003). The Declaration of ASEAN Concord was also adopted in order to forestall the occurrence of similar conflicts arising from interference (Simon, 2008).

Finally, regional community-building dynamics of ASEAN may be explained through analysis of the development in the technology over the last three decades. The advancement of telecommunication and transportation, for instance, increased the mobility of capital and made the transfer of production to other countries a trend among developed countries. Changes in the attitude of the MNC’s, which was brought about by new technology, resulted in the shift from producing for local markets to producing for exports. The development in communication also resulted to alterations in demand These phenomena resulted in a major change of attitude among ASEAN members and prompted them to consider closer economic integration in order to facilitate trade and attract investments that might be diverted elsewhere (Bowles, 1997; Akrasanee & Stifel, 1994).Ω

References:

Akrasanee, N., & Stifel, D. (1994). A vision of Southeast Asia in the year 2000: towards a common economic regime. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 1-13.

Booth, A. (2007). Colonial legacies: economic and social development in East and Southeast Asia. University of Hawaii Press.

Bowles, P. (1997). ASEAN, AFTA and the” New Regionalism”. Pacific Affairs, 219-233.

Grier, R. (1997). The effect of religion on economic development: A cross national study of 63 former colonies. Kyklos, 50(1), 47-62.

Houben, V. J. (2003). Southeast Asia and Islam. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 588(1), 149-170.

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

Severino, R. (2007). ASEAN beyond forty: Towards political and economic integration. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 29(3), 406-423.

Stuart-Fox, M. (2006). Buddhism and politics in Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand Summer School, Asia Pacific Week, Australian National University, January.

Simon, S. (2008). ASEAN and multilateralism: The long, bumpy road to community. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 30(2), 264-292.