ASEAN on the Ropes?

Southeast Asian governments losing their sense of direction again.

By Farish A Noor

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed in 1967, following the brief ‘confrontation’ between Malaysia andIndonesia, in an attempt to forestall the possibility of conflict in the region and to halt the march of communism across Southeast Asia.  Since then, it has been a neutral body, aligned to the Non-Aligned movement (NAM) though it was well known that it was always quietly ’neutral on the side of the West’.

The question today is what role does ASEAN have to play in the rapidly changing global climate, with the ascendant power of the American hegemon so evidently on display? Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of American-supported dictatorships such as that of Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Suharto of Indonesia, ASEAN seems like a spent force. The entry of the periphery countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and now Burma was motivated less by the desire to create a pan-ASEAN bloc similar to
the European Union, but more to ensure that these countries would not lapse behind in the development race. However, vast disparities remain, such as the insurmountable income gap (GDP) between countries like Singapore and Cambodia, as well as the different political systems in ASEAN, such as between the absolute monarchy of Brunei and the capitalism-driven economies of Malaysia and Singapore.

Nowhere, however, has the region even come close to building what may be called a ‘people’s ASEAN’. No talk of a common ASEAN economic,  development or citizenship policy has ever been uttered, save for joint co-operation programs between the armies and security forces of the region.

It is this lack of common vision that makes ASEAN so vulnerable to the prying eyes and hands of external powers, notably China, the United States and Australia. Australia now sits as a close observer to ASEAN affairs, and the United States does not even have to be at the ASEAN meetings thanks to the surrogate actions of Washington’s proxies in Manila and Singapore. At the last ASEAN summit, it was noted that many of the issues discussed—ranging from human rights and democratization to structural adjustment and economic liberalization—were all items on Washington’s agenda anyway. So who runs ASEAN today? The governments of Southeast Asia or Washington through proxy agents and cronies?

At the recent ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, it was noted with irony that the only areas of consensus reached—such as the chastising of Burma for its appalling human rights record—were issues highlighted by the USA earlier. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi was given the thumbs-up by the foreign media for his soft leadership of the event,
and hardly any controversial matters were raised save the usual platitudes from Malaysian and Indonesian leaders who insisted that Washington’s war on terror should not be based on racial profiling or the stereotyping of Muslims.

Seen in this light, ASEAN’s future seems bleak when set against Washington’s stated aim of ‘full spectrum dominance’. AS the only other international body apart from the EU, ASEAN does not seem to have the same unifying vision and purpose. Its feudal culture of accomodation, which has compelled it to open its doors to China,  Australia and the USA as important dialogue partners and more than quiet observers, means that even its political boundaries have been breached. What use is a southeast asian regional grouping if its
deliberations are determined in Washington, Peking and Canberra?

-