Ngan Truong 6/24/2016

Transcription

1 ISA ASIA PACIFIC 2016 RESEARCH PAPER PLS 737 Seminar in International Organizations Is ASEAN the Primary Source of Governance in Southeast Asia? Ngan Truong 6/24/2016 The aim of this study is to investigate the origin and design of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and its impacts on ten member states. The author hopes to answer the question of whether or not this international organization is a primary player in the regional and global politics.

2 INTRODUCTION Since its establishment on August 8 th, 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has acted like a bridge linking all of its members. Initially, only five states, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, signed the ASEAN Declaration. Brunei Darussalam joined ASEAN in 1984, and Vietnam became a member the following year. This membership was expanded to Laos and Myanmar in 1997, and Cambodia in At this time, ASEAN has a total number of ten member states. This association has been considered a platform for participating countries not only to share similarities but also to celebrate differences with the ASEAN Community. The ASEAN Community is composed of three parts: the ASEAN Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community, and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. Each pillar has its own blueprint which, together with ASEAN s aims and purposes, has made a large number of significant changes in the Southeast Asian region. Recently, ASEAN shows its strength through its voice in the South China Sea disputes with China. The ten member states want to negotiate with China as an entity instead of separately as single countries. Moreover, ASEAN has become a lawful and legitimate signatory in all treaties with partner countries from other regions. The ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement is an example. Lastly, the ASEAN has recently taken human rights of women and children into account by setting up the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of these rights. In short, as a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN has increasingly performed as a primary player in the region and world politics This study aims to look at different theoretical approaches to the study of ASEAN and its impacts on the region. In order to achieve this aim, the three main research questions are: (1) why and how was ASEAN established, (2) what are its impacts on member states in three 2

3 aspects: political-security, economic, and socio-cultural, and (3) what are the pros and cons of this regional intergovernmental organization? The results of this research will try to answer the looming question of whether the ASEAN is beginning to replace the ten member states as the primary source of governance in the Southeast Asian region. WHY AND HOW WAS ASEAN ESTABLISHED? First and foremost, to understand the establishment of the ASEAN, it is good to start with the origins of Southeast Asia. This region had been called by various names before World War II, such as further India, greater India, Indo-China, or the Dar Eastern tropics, due to the belief that this region was mostly influenced by Chinese and Indian culture (Hemmer and Katzenstein 2002, p. 591). Among those names, the most popular ones were Nan-yo (southern seas) in Japan and Nan-Yang or Kun-Lun ( Little China or the lands of the Southern Ocean ) in China (Warsha 1975, p.1; Williams 1976, 3-5). During the Pacific War, Japan s invasion and occupation of the area resulted in the prominence of the term Southeast Asia, differentiating this area from the north of China which was also under Japan s control (Warshaw1975, 1; William 1976, 3). After Japan, this pre-colonial area continued its fight to gain freedom from the European powers. Indonesia struggled in their battle against the Dutch and eventually won their independence in 1949, whereas Vietnam won a war against the French in 1954 (Narine 2002, 10). Despite the victory and formal independence acquired by the states of Southeast Asia, these countries colonial and war experiences shaped their understanding of regionalism in the area as a way to avoid external threats (Narine 2002, 10). The states of Southeast Asia attempted to create many regional institutions before the establishment of ASEAN. For example, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was 3

4 created in 1954 and the Asian Pacific Council (ASPAC) in However, these two memberships consisted of fewer Southeast Asian states, such as the Philippines and Thailand. These two organizations were dissolved in 1977 and 1973 respectively due to the fact that they were initiated by outside powers and meant to serve the interests of external actors (Narine 2002, 10). Although SEATO and ASPAC were very well-structured, they were quite irrelevant to the security concerns and development of regionalism in these Southeast Asian states (Narine 2002, 10). Hemmer and Katzenstaien (2002, ) offered another explanation for the organizations expiration, which was the civilizational, ethic, racial, and religious differences between creators and member states. To cope with these early failures, some Southeast Asian states established the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA) in 1961 and Malaya Philippines Indonesia (MALPHILINDO) in 1963, both of which offered membership only to other states in the Southeast Asian area. The ASA was crucial at that time because its political connections partially helped to resolve the disputed borders between Malaya and the Philippines. At first, the ASA duplicated the model of the European Economic Community, but it soon switched to a looser structure without binding obligations upon its members (Narine 2002, 11). However, Indonesia, the biggest state in the region, opposed the ASA because it was not one of the organization s founders. Once again, the rising conflicts over the overlapping sovereignty claims on British North Borneo, Sabah, as well as the Federation of Malaysia s proposal to combine Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, and Sarawak, led to the collapse of the ASA in Similarly, the establishment of the state of Malaysia in 1953 under the support of the British, coupled with the Indonesian and Filipino refusal to recognize Malaysia, caused MALPHILINDO to expire in September 1963, a month after its creation in August 1963 (Narine 2002, 11-12). Indonesia then 4

5 imposed a number of economic sanctions on the newly-established state of Malaysia, which negatively impacted Indonesia as well (Antolik 1990, 19). Still, the region was under the threat of political and territorial disputes. The whole region was thirsting for a new organization, explaining why ASEAN was formed. The original participating countries, namely Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines, gathered in Bangkok, Thailand on August, 1967 to establish the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) through the Bangkok Declaration. The mutual concerns all signatories of ASEAN shared at that time were indigenous insurgencies that potentially invited external intervention in the region (Narine 2002, 13). ASEAN proposed three ways to deal with these problems. Firstly, ASEAN states introduced the idea of national resilience to stop internal Communist uprisings from escalating and to promote domestic socio-economic development (Leifer 1989, 3-4). Secondly, the reduction of external actors influences was taken into account by the members, meaning that these five states labeled foreign military bases in the region temporary and promoted security from external interference (Leifer 1989, 4). Thirdly, the original ASEAN signatories sought to build intra-regional relationships among themselves (Leifer 1989, 4). Despite ASEAN s priority on security concerns, the organization promoted itself as an economic cooperation initiative. Social progress and cultural development in the region were also declared as ASEAN s purposes apart from regional peace and stability promotion. According to Narine (2002, 15), ASEAN s original members belonged to a group of anticommunist states that avoided building a military bloc due to the differences among members about security matters, distrust for each other, and lack of military power. More importantly, ASEAN s five signatories at the time attempted to mitigate the polarizing effects 5

6 of such a position (anticommunist security bloc) on the other states of the region (Narine 2002, 15). ASEAN s Organizational Structure As mentioned above, compared to the European Economic Community at that time, the structure of ASEAN was looser. When ASEAN was created, the main decision-making body was its Annual Ministerial Meeting (AMM) comprised of foreign ministers of member states. AMM was followed by the ASEAN Standing Committee (ASC) which oversaw daily tasks of the organization. The ASC was chaired by the foreign minister of the host nation and consisted of the ambassadors of the respective ASEAN states within their host country. The host country rotated annually between the five signatories. As part of the Foreign Ministries of the ASEAN members, ASEAN National Secretariats were set up. Nevertheless, after eight years of operation, the original structure proved to have many shortcomings. ASEAN only carried out a small proportion of the recommendations from member states and no one group had a true overview of the organization s activities (Narine 2002, 16). In ASEAN s Bali Summit in 1976, ASEAN experienced a significant number of changes, and the new organizational structure turned out to be more effective and cost-saving. First and foremost, Economic Ministers Meetings were established and soon became the most influential forum for trade cooperation issues (Chin 1995, 431). Moreover, the member states agreed to institutionalize annual ASEAN-Post-Ministerial Conferences (ASEAN-PMC), together with the ASEAN Dialogue partners (Chin 1995, 432). A group of senior foreign ministry officials was encouraged to meet every year as part of the Senior Official Meeting (SOM), which provided political consultations and services for the AMM (Narine 2002, 16). Last but not least, the existing committees were replaced by five economic committees and three functional 6

7 committees which were given technical support from ASEAN National Secretariats and other lesser groups (Chin 1995, 432). The organization, however, was reorganized into the currently operating structure in ASEAN s Functions In the past five decades, ASEAN has been functioning according to the aims and purposes agreed upon by the ASEAN members in the ASEAN Declaration: (1) 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; (2) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter; (3) to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields; (4) to provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in the educational, professional, technical and administrative spheres; (5) to collaborate more effectively for the greater utilisation of their agriculture and industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the problems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their transportation and communications facilities and the raising of the living standards of their peoples; (6) to promote Southeast Asian studies; and (7) to maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all avenues for even closer cooperation among themselves.(asean website). ASEAN s Expansion During the Cold War, the five ASEAN founding states hardly offered membership to states in the region. The rare exception, Brunei Darussalam, was admitted on January 7, However, in the post-cold War period, there was a rapid increase in the number of participating countries. In 1993, the five ASEAN founders and Brunei welcomed Vietnam and Laos at the 26 th 7

8 AMM as Observers and Cambodia as a Guest. While Vietnam and Laos continued their Observer positions at the 27 th AMM the following year, Myanmar joined Cambodia as a Guest. ASEAN accepted the membership application from Vietnam in The first Informal ASEAN Summit attended by ASEAN Heads of Governments in Jakarta in 1996 declared commitment to the simultaneous admission of Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar to ASEAN. However, due to a coup in Cambodia, its membership was delayed. Laos and Myanmar eventually became member states of ASEAN in 1997 in Kuala Lumpur, followed by the admission of Kingdom of Cambodia as the tenth ASEAN member in (Acharya 2001, xviii). This increased ASEAN s member-state population and market size from 340 million people to almost 500 million, and the ASEAN states GDP went up to 650 billion USD (Narine 2002, 113). In so doing, ASEAN s leaders believed that ASEAN was a [true] representative of all of Southeast Asia, and ASEAN s expansion, hopefully, made ASEAN a political counterweight to the great powers in Asia such as China, Japan, and India (Narine 2002, 113). The ASEAN Charter The ASEAN Charter was ratified by ten member states during the 13 th ASEAN Summit in Singapore on November 20, It came into effect on December 15, 2008 after a gathering of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers in Jakarta, Indonesia. The ASEAN was registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations (UN), and it serve[d] as a firm foundation in achieving the ASEAN Community by providing legal status and institutional framework for ASEAN (ASEAN website). With 13 chapters and 55 articles, the ASEAN Charter was welcomed by the participating nations as a way to promote ASEAN norms, rules, and values, as well as to show ASEAN s identity as exemplified by the ASEAN motto of One Vision, One Identity, One Community, the ASEAN flag, ASEAN Day (the eighth of August), and the ASEAN Anthem 8

9 (ASEAN website). In addition to clearer targets, the ASEAN Charter also provided mechanisms to address regional issues such as human rights, migrant workers, and women s and children s rights. The Charter also gives civil societies in the region the right to participate in the development of ASEAN (Wahyuningrum 2009). The ASEAN Community The ASEAN Community consists of three main parts, namely the political-security community, economic community, and socio-cultural community. Each community has its own blueprint to guide its activities: 1. ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) Blueprint was adopted by the ASEAN Leaders at the 14 th ASEAN Summit on March 1, 2009 in Hua Hin, Thailand. The members of the APSC suggest that intra-regional differences and security matters should be managed and settled by peaceful processes. The APSC has the following components: political development, shaping and sharing of norms, conflict prevention, conflict resolution, post-conflict peace building, and implementing mechanisms (ASEAN website). 2. ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) was established on November 20, 2007 at the 13 th ASEAN Summit in Singapore. The AEC has the following main characteristics: a single market and production base, a highly competitive economic region, a region of equitable economic development, and a region fully integrated into the global economy (ASEAN website). The ASEAN member states believe the creation of the AEC will transform Southeast Asia into a region with a free flow of goods, services, human resources, and capital, which will consequently reduce poverty and economic disparities by the year 2020 (Wahyuningrum 2009). 9

10 3. ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) concentrates on nurturing the human, cultural and natural resources for sustained development in a harmonious and peopleoriented ASEAN (ASEAN website). Improving the living standards of underprivileged people and rural populations, as well as seeking the active involvement of all sectors of society, especially women, youth, and local communities, is also mentioned in the ASCC s aims (Wahyuningrum 2009). The ASCC, coupled with the APSC Blueprint, was also adopted by the ASEAN leaders during the 14 th ASEAN Summit in Thailand. ASEAN S IMPACTS ON ITS MEMBERS Political-Security Impacts: From Konfrontasi to the ZOPFAN Proposal, the TAC, and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord: Confrontation Neutralization Cooperation The first and foremost political-security influence that ASEAN has had on its members is changing ideology. At the end of the 1960s, Konfrontasi was a political approach pursued by Indonesia, the leading state in the region. The Indonesian government, under the control of their nationalist leader Sukarno, considered the British proposal of establishing the state of Malaysia a threat to the region and Indonesian domestic stability. He introduced Konfrontasi as a policy to prevent regionalism, backing rebellions and uprisings in Malaysia. When Konfrontasi was practiced in the domestic political arena, hundreds of members and supporters of the Communist Party of Indonesia were badly harassed by the Indonesian armed forces. This regional disruption ended after a coup. General Suharto became the new leader of Indonesia in 1967 (Allagapa 1991, 18). Suharto provided more favorable conditions for regionalism. After its creation, ASEAN was immediately endangered by the Corregidor Affair in March 1968 when the Philippines used the island of Corregidor as a training base for Muslims 10

11 and their insurgencies in Sabah, the island whose sovereignty was disputed between the Philippines and Malaysia (Jorgenson-Dahl 1982, ). However, Malaysia resumed the bilateral relationship with the Filipino government to work towards more ambitious goals within ASEAN (Irvine 1982, 20). Malaysia proposed and advocated the neutralization of Southeast Asia, seeking to gain guarantees from great power states that they would not pursue their disputes within Southeast Asia (Narine 2002, 19). Malaysian leaders believed that neutralization would prevent the ASEAN states from military instability and focus more on economic development. During a special meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 1971, the ASEAN members discussed neutralization as a desirable objective in the Declaration on a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN), and five states were encouraged to explored ways and means of bringing about its realization (ASEAN website). Secondly, ASEAN has played a role in creating norms and rules among its members. The extreme examples are the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord concluded after the 1976 Bali Summit. On one hand, the TAC improved interstate relations based on some newly-established norms: - Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territory, integrity and national identity of all nations - The right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion - Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another - Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means 11

12 -Renunciation of the threat or use of force (Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Bali, Indonesia, February 24, 1976). On the other hand, the Declaration of ASEAN Concord proposed [the] principle of resilience as a shared approach to domestic and regional security, which focused on socio-economic development to avoid inner social and economic vulnerability (Emmers 2003, 18). The ASEAN states attempted to boost trade relations as an attempt to maintain their intraregional trade liberalization, eventually enhancing military capability and cooperation (Frost 1990, 7) Furthermore, border security cooperation between the ASEAN states has been improved since the advent of ASEAN in For example, Indonesia and Malaysia ended their confrontation after the Bangkok Agreement in May These two countries also signed a Border Security agreement in 1972 to stop insurgents on the East Malaysia-Kalimantan border, followed by a series of counterinsurgency offensives in 1982 and the expansion of maritime cooperation in the Strait of Malacca in 1984 (Acharya 1991, ). Similarly, Thailand and the Philippines signed an accord in December 1976 to continue to cooperate in combating internal insurgency and subversion through consultations and exchanges of intelligence and views (Menon 1988, 314). What is more, the past four decades have witnessed a remarkable rise in the number of cooperative education and training programs among the ASEAN armed forces, as well as in the quantity of exchanges and visits related to defense technology, personnel, and logistics management (Acharya 1991, 168). The military command and staff colleges for training middleand senior-level officers have become multilateral forums for training and visits. For instance, Singapore, according to Lt. General Winston Choo (1989), has strengthened its security ties and military exchanges with Brunei. 12

13 From Kampuchea Conflict to the South China Sea Dispute Kampuchea (now known as Cambodia) was ruled under the Khmer Rouge, which created hostility with the Vietnamese Communist Party due to differences in doctrine, history culture, and the demands of strategic imperatives (Narine 2002, 41). While Vietnam perceived that friendly governments in neighboring states were important to the country s security, Kampuchea saw it as a threat and asked for help from China to fight Vietnam. Consequently, Vietnam finally invaded Kampuchea in December ASEAN played an important role in stopping Vietnam from building its hegemony in the Indochina area by garnering support for its diplomatic agenda in international forums like the UN (Narine 2002, 47). Even though Vietnam and Cambodia were not members of the organization at that time, ASEAN attempted to avoid the negative impacts of intraregional conflicts on its members. The South China Sea dispute began when some ASEAN states such as the Philippines and Vietnam claimed their overlapping sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, along with an external power China. The involvement of many states makes the South China Sea dispute a more impossible and pressing problem for ASEAN to resolve. China makes itself known to the world as the owner of the South China Sea by following the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); however, other ASEAN states and great powers like the United States have criticized China for its misinterpretations of the international law in such a way as to maximize its claims (Lee 1999, 38). Despite China s growing pressure, membership in ASEAN has brought island claimants a certain number of benefits. For example, Vietnam s admission into ASEAN has enhanced its bargaining position with other states, particularly China (Dosch 2007, 211). Similarly, the Philippines has sought ASEAN s support to engage China in multilateral negotiations, rather than the bilateral dialogues that China has 13

14 previously pursued to deal with much smaller and weaker states. As a result, ASEAN foreign ministers issued a joint statement, known as the ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea of 1992, encouraging all concerned parties to address the issues in various forums (Lee 1999, 107). China also signed the Declaration in 2002 (Dosch 2007, 76). In short, ASEAN has made a lot of effort to reduce interregional conflicts and committed itself to protecting its members from external powers. The Creation of the ARF and the Participation of Non-State Actors The ASEAN states have not only dealt with transnational issues such as pollution, crime, and terrorism but also maintained relations with super powers such as the United States, China, and Japan. A regional security dialogue could address and resolve rising problems that influence the entire region. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established at the 26 th AMM in 1993 under the pressure of external political pressures rather than internal political strategies. The creation of the ARF, according to ASEAN leaders, would keep the United States in the region, and engage China in a structure that could influence its long-term behavior (Narine 2002, 102). The participants of the forum agreed to organize the ARF annually and endorsed the ASEAN TAC as a code of conduct governing state relations (Leifer 1996, 34-35). Membership in ASEAN has led to a switch from a realist to a more liberal perspective (Dosch 2007, 46). Member governments have actively supported the stronger participation of non-state actors such as NGOs and other organizations of civil society (Dosch 2007, 12). Moreover, public opinion, semi-governmental research and university institutes have increasingly influenced ASEAN-related policies, the most popular of which are the Institutes of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) including the ISIS in Kuala Lumpur, the ISIS in Bangkok, and the CSIS in Jakarta (Dosch 2007, 65). The effects of the non-state actors 14

15 participation can be seen most clearly in the remaining nondemocratic states of Southeast Asia, namely Vietnam, Laos, and Burma. These three states have been experiencing an ongoing shift from a statist to a pluralist approach in foreign policy making (Dosch 2007, 204). The ASEAN Way of Diplomacy Many agree that ASEAN successes are a direct result of the ASEAN Way of diplomacy, defined as the management of interregional relations by means of informal network building and soft institutionalization of norms and rules (Dosch 2007, 177). The ASEAN Way originated from the Malay cultural practices called mufukat (consensus) and musjawarah (willingness of the members to be aware of the larger interests at stake in a situation) (Narine 2002, 31). ASEAN is incapable of solving contentious problems among the participating states, but it can put the issues aside to keep them from preventing progress in other issue-areas. In this way, intra- ASEAN conflicts have always been handled successfully using non-confrontational approaches due to the encouragement of consultation and dialogue. Moreover, ASEAN s unified policies are the lowest common denominator among member states (Narine 2002, 32-33). Economic Impacts Some protectionist states, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, witnessed economic growth during the 1980s due to their open economies, which resulted in changes in the other ASEAN states attitudes toward trade liberalization (Narine 2002, 126). Instead of bilateral trade relations, the ten ASEAN countries pursued multilateral economic policies. Under its Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has led the most economic initiatives in ASEAN, including the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA), and sub-regional cooperation in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) (Dosch 2007, 47). 15

16 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) The ASEAN member states endorsed the AFTA in Singapore in The dominant and profound influence that the AFTA has exerted on its member states has been to reduce intraregional competition and attract more foreign direct investment in the region. First of all, the AFTA called for tariff reduction on all intra-asean trade and removed nontariff barriers under the Common Effective Preferential Tariff scheme (CEFT) (Narine 2002, 127). The CEFT has also guided member states to harmonize customs, investment and standards regulations and procedures (Heng and Gayathri 2004, 170). Moreover, ASEAN issued the rule of origin as a general rule to construct a single production base for the world market. ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA) Since China s emergence as a formidable economic power in the early 1990s and its admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, ASEAN-China trade relations have been taken into careful consideration by the ASEAN states. At the end of the 20 th century, ASEAN-China imports and exports stood at 9.6 billion USD and 12.3 billion USD, respectively (Chirathivat 2008, 41). ASEAN, as a legal identity, has a louder voice in international economic negotiations with China compared to a single state engaging in bilateral agreements. The framework of ACFTA was initially signed on November 4, 2002 (Castro 2002) and took effect as of January 1, 2010 (Walker 2010). One of the effects the ACFTA has had on ASEAN was to reduce tariffs on product categories (ASEAN website). The total eleven signatories of the ACFTA makes up the largest free trade area with regard to population and third largest in terms of nominal GDP (Gooch 2009, Walker 2010). Similarly, ASEAN went through the same process in entering ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) in 2010 and ASEAN Plus Three, which 16

17 includes ten member states and three great powers in East Asia, namely China, Japan, and South Korea. The Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) The Mekong River is the largest in Southeast Asia, going through five ASEAN countries, including Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Poverty and political instability have been the pressing problems along the lower river basin. To deal with these issues, ASEAN has been implementing projects in the GMS program, exemplifying how ASEAN has become a forum for member states to convene and discuss related problems, express their ideas, and propose some recommendations (Dosch 2007, ). Moreover, membership in ASEAN provides participating countries with more chances to trade with other nations in different parts of the world apart from Asia. For example, in 2002, two-way trade between the US and ASEAN totaled $120 billion, with U.S. exports to ASEAN states reaching $44 billion. Under President George Bush, the Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative was established, which allowed ASEAN countries the flexibility to move at their own speed toward an FTA with the United States (Dosch 2007, ). Moreover, as an economic organization, ASEAN has helped to reduce the negative impacts caused by regional and international crises. Admission to ASEAN has brought negotiating power to its members. For example, after being accepted to the Association, Vietnam completed their application forms to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the WTO. Had Vietnam not been an ASEAN member, the country would not have been involved in the previously mentioned organizations. Vietnam has viewed ASEAN as a means to accelerate economic region, modernization and convergence with this dynamic region (Gates 2000, 7). 17

18 Socio-Cultural Impacts ASEAN has created many cultural changes in the societies of its member states. First of all, following the establishment of the ASC community, human development, social welfare and protection, and environmental sustainability continues to be promoted among member states. For example, the literacy rate of the youth population in Vietnam was more than 93% in 2010 compared to 89% in 2009 (UNESCO website), and Thailand is one of the top ten countries with high achievement on the Environmental Performance Index due to its well-maintained environment health and ecosystem vitality (Mid-term Review of the ASC Blue Print, ). Additionally, the ASC is aimed at building ASEAN s identity and protecting social justice and rights. Building ASEAN s Identity The ASEAN motto One Vision, One Identity, One Community, the ASEAN flag, ASEAN Day (the eighth of August), and the ASEAN Anthem were ratified by member states as a way to show ASEAN s identity (ASEAN website). Events such as the ASEAN Festival of Arts, ASEAN Cities of Culture, Best of ASEAN Performing Arts, ASEAN Quiz, ASEAN Studies courses, and ASEAN Corners have become popular among the ten member states (Midterm Review of the ASC Blue Print, ). In this way, people in the region get to know their neighboring countries cultures through shared membership and celebrations. Protecting Social Justice and Rights Most ASEAN societies are patriarchal, where men are more appreciated and respected than women. Women, under these conservative societies, were restricted by many rules and norms. However, with a more liberal perspective within ASEAN, women are more protected and 18

19 are given more desirable freedoms. The ASEAN Commission on the Promotions and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children has launched a work plan with the aim to protect women and children from 2012 to 2016 (ASEAN website). Being a member of ASEAN makes participating countries pay closer attention to vulnerable and marginal groups of citizens, such as persons with disabilities, older people and migrant workers. Undoubtedly, the ASC community helps spread human rights which have been universally accepted in the ten member states. Unquestionably, ASEAN is successful in putting human rights into regional agenda during high-profile meetings and discussions, as well as diffusing norms among member states. ASEAN S ACHIEVEMENT During the five decades after its formation, ASEAN has achieved many enormous successes. In the political-security field, one of the most remarkable achievements of ASEAN has been the ability of its member states to harmonize their foreign policies and speak with one voice in international affairs. ASEAN has given the ten member states greater confidence and success in negotiating and bargaining with third-party countries (Dosch 2007, 166). Moreover, ASEAN has established formal relations with leading regional and global powers, such as the United States, the European Union, China, and Japan. From the analysis of ASEAN s impacts on its members, it is certain that ASEAN has worked effectively as a regional conflict mediator. Many inter-state disputes in the region have been managed and settled via the ASEAN Way. Moreover, by border security cooperation and military training and exchanges among the ten countries, ASEAN has come to be viewed as a security community. The ZOPFAN Declaration was seen by the ASEAN states as having a greater potential to enhance their security than a military pact (Acharya 1991, 163). Furthermore, Vietnamese hegemony in Indochina has been 19

20 prevented as a result of the decline in Communist insurgency in the ASEAN states (Acharya 1991, 165). With regard to the South China Sea dispute, Chinese and Filipino oil companies agreed upon a joint exploration and exploitation program in 2004, and the Vietnamese took part in the project in March 2005 (Chambers 2008, 174). In terms of economic cooperation, ASEAN has provided its ten member states with a framework for economic development. ASEAN s formation and maintenance of regional stability and peace has created favorable conditions for trade and commerce to flourish. More importantly, with the development of the GMS program, economic development and security became intertwined in a way never before seen (Dosch 2007, 212). With regard to socio-cultural impacts, ASEAN set[s] up the first ever space in the region for civil society organizations (CSOs) to talk and plan collective actions in promoting human rights (Nguyen Anh Tuan, 2015). Second only to the EU, ASEAN has been a successful example of regionalism outside Europe (Dosch 2007, 1). ASEAN S CRITICISM Despite many achievements the ASEAN community has gained in recent years, it is certain that this regional organization has suffered from some shortcomings in the politicalsecurity, the economy, and socio-cultural identity. The main critiques of ASEAN on its politicalsecurity are the lack of an enforcement scheme, the ineffectiveness of the dispute resolution mechanism, and the unresolved China Sea dispute. Although ASEAN has been viewed as a successful regional security community, most participants have not perceived the Association as a security arrangement that could replace existing bilateral links with external players (Emmers 2003, 17). For example, the Philippines value the military commitments it has with the United States more than its relationships with other ASEAN member states. Additionally, ASEAN has 20

21 no enforcement mechanism for security cooperation, shown through the ZOPFAN Declaration which imposed no legal obligations on its signatories (Narine 2002, 21) and the inability of the TAC s provision for a dispute resolution mechanism to work unless all the parties to the dispute agree to their application to that dispute (Emmers 2003, 20). Furthermore, the South China Sea dispute is still a pressing problem between ASEAN states and China. According to Lee (1999, 147), China s growing financial support for some of the ASEAN states and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will make it even harder for ASEAN to resolve the problem. Consequently, the discussions on the South China Sea conflict may drag on and remain a bone of contention in the Sino-ASEAN relationship (Lee 1999, 147). In terms of economic cooperation, the differences in the level of development between the five founders and other member states might undermine the prospect for regional economic growth (Acharya 2001, 175).With regard to ASEAN s identity, it is not shared equally by all of the members, and there are different levels of commitment to the ASEAN identity from state to state (Narine 2002, 2-3). There also still appear to be some criticism of ASEAN s structure and institutions. Regarding ASEAN s organization structure, the lack of funds and staff members makes it impossible for the ASEAN Secretariat to play an important role in the process of policy making. In addition, the secretary-general of the ASEAN Secretariat was accorded a very low status, which negatively impacts his/her work towards enhanced regional cooperation (Narine 2002, 18-19). Moreover, the institutionalization of ASEAN shows many weaknesses. Despite the great importance of the common interests and objectives in forming a strong regional institution, ASEAN members vary their interests due to the differences in economic and political philosophies, systems, or levels of development. 21

22 The problem also lies in the principle of non-interference. The ASEAN community respects its members sovereignty, which occasionally makes it impossible to resolve transnational issues, like human rights violations. Nguyen Anh Tuan, a Vietnamese human rights activist, states, When most states focus on non-interference mechanism, not a single state criticizes another on its human rights violations. Tuan also makes a comparison with the EU: EU, for example, has its own court to protect human rights in the region while it s not the case in ASEAN now. During the ASEAN People s Forum (APF) 2015, participants mostly discussed labor flows but did not mention how foreign laborers could receive help and political advice when being badly treated overseas. Regarding the fight against transnational crime, despite the established framework, the action plan is mostly based on the principle of voluntary contribution (Dosch 2007, 210). Last but not least, ASEAN abides by the unanimity principle. For ASEAN to pass any new law or rule, every member state has to agree. In the case of human rights, some countries use their veto to prevent a new rule from being passed. This is the reason many spiraling issue-areas have never been discussed in the ASEAN meetings or sessions, an extreme example being the Burmese authoritarian regime (Davies 2012, p. 2). A REAL BIG PLAYER? ASEAN AND IOs THEORY It is hard to deny the influences the ASEAN has made on its ten member states, especially on security and economic fields. As a legitimate organization, ASEAN is making progress towards building a regional community. States in the region resolve transnational issues via intra-state negotiations and discussions. The convention and cooperation among the ASEAN member states is also an example of globalization, in which the distinction between domestic and foreign problems has increasingly become blurred (Dosch 2007, 3). The ideas of minimizing transaction costs and creating 22

23 agreements have in part led to regionalism in Southeast Asia. However, there is a tension between globalization and sovereignty. Some states restrict external pressure on domestic problems, as shown in ASEAN s failure in dealing with human rights violations in Myanmar. In terms of power and interdependence, Vietnam and the Philippines have become more powerful and influential in negotiations with China over the South China Sea dispute due to the support from other members of ASEAN. Nevertheless, the more the two states depend on ASEAN, the higher level of risk the two countries face, especially if other states value their own interests more than the sovereignty problems of Vietnam and the Philippines. Sense of community within ASEAN is quite vague, so ASEAN is just an instrument of its member states to pursue their own interests. This organization is expected to work more effectively if there are changes in power balance (both political and economic) across states. Southeast Asia is a proactive and moving region for the time being, and it requires more in-depth analysis. In this case, the influence of super powers interested in maximizing their impacts on the region should be taken into consideration. In short, the study of ASEAN helps us understand how a multilateral organization is established, how it has affected its member states, and its advantages and disadvantages in the role of a regional governance body. 23

24 REFERENCES Acharya, Amitav. (1991). The Association of Southeast Asian Nations: Security Community or Defense Community?.Pacific Affairs 64.2: Acharya, Amitav. (2001).Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order.London and New York: Routledge Curzon. Alagappa, Muthiah. (1991a). The Dynamics of International Security in Southeast Asia: Change and Continuity. Australian Journal of International Affairs 45 (May): Antolik, Michael. (1990). ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accommodation. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Web. February 28, Barkin, J. Samuel. (2013). International Organizations: Theories and Institutions. 2 nd Ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Castro, Isagani de. (2002, November 6). Big brother China woos ASEAN. Asia Times Online. Retrieved from Chambers, Michael (2008). China s military rise to great power status. In Evelyn Goh and Sheldon W. Simon (Ed.), China, United States, and Southeast Asia: Contending perspectives on politics, security, and economics (pp ). London and New York: Routledge. Chin Kin Wah. (1995). ASEAN: Consolidation and Institutional Change. The Pacific Review 8.3: Chirathivat, Suthipand (2008). China s military rise to great power status. In Evelyn Goh and Sheldon W. Simon (Ed.), China, United States, and Southeast Asia: Contending perspectives on politics, security, and economics (pp ). London and New York: Routledge. Davies, Mathew. (2012). The Perils of Incoherence: ASEAN, Myanmar, and the Avoidable Failures of Human Rights Socialization. Contemporary Southeast Asia 34.1: 1-22 Dosch, Jorn. (2007). The Changing Dynamics of Southeast Asian Politics. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner. Emmers, Ralf. (2003).Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF. London and New York: Routledge Curzon. Frost, Frank. (1990). Inreoduction: ASEAN Since 1967 Origins, Evolution and Recent Developments. In Alison Broinowski (Ed.), ASEAN into the 1990s (pp. 1-31). London: Macmillan. Gates, Carolyn L. (2000). Vietnam s Economic Transformation and Convergence with the Dynamics ASEAN economies. Comparative Economic Studies 42.4:

25 Gooch, Liz. (2009. December 31). Asia Free-Trade Zone Raised Hopes, and Some Fears about China.The New York Times. Retrieved from Hemmer, Christopher J.; Katzenstein, Peter. (2002) Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism. International Organizations 56.3: Heng, TohMun; Gayathri, Vasudevan. (2004). Impact of Regional Trade Liberalization on Emerging Economies: The Case of Vietnam. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 21.2: Irvine, Roger. (1982). The Formative Years of ASEAN: In Alison Broinowski, (Ed.), Understanding ASEAN (pp. 8-36). New York: St. Martin s Press. Jorgenson-Dahl, Arnfinn. (1982). Regional organization and Order in Southeast Asia. London: Macmillan. Lee Lai To. (1999).China and the South China Sea Dialogues. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Leifer, Michael. (1989). ASEAN and the Security of Southeast Asia. London: Routledge. Menon, K.U. (1988). A Six power Defense Arrangement in Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia 10.3: Narine, Shaun. (2002). Explaining AESAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Colorado: Lynne Rienner. Nguyen Anh Tuan, personal communication, April 29, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Web. April 29, Wahyuningrum, Yuyun. (2012, December).Understanding ASEAN: Its Systems and Structures. Retrieved from Walker, Andrew. (2010, January 1). China and AEAN free trade deal begins. BBC News. Retrieved from Warshawm Steven. (1975). Southeast Asia Emerges: A Concise History of Southeast Asia from Its origins to the Present. Berkeley, California: The Diablo Press. Williams, Lee E. (1976). Southeast Asia: A Short History. New York: Oxford University Press. Winston Choo, Lt. General, Commander of Singapore s Armed Forces, personal interview, Asian Defense Journal, no. 3 (1989), p

26 26