The Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Assignment Example

I. To what extent has ASEANs intramural conflict management evolved since the Associations major enlargement in 1997? Focus on both intra and interstate conflict. ASEAN’s ability to keep the peace and manage conflicts in Southeast Asia has earned it a reputation as one of the developing world’s “most successful experiments in global cooperation”(Jetty 2003, 53). Notably there hasn’t been a war between ASEAN member states since the organizations inception in 1967 (Acharya 2001, 204). Not only has ASEAN member states avoided intra-mural war, ASEAN states have also managed to avoid wars with non-ASEAN states (Achaya 2001, 204). However, up until ASEAN enlargement in 1997, the Association was relatively small and comprised of nations with common interests and policies (Acharya and Johnston 2007, 32). Therefore interstate conflict among ASEAN states was contained by virtue of a culture of shared knowledge, mutual trust and facilitating shared interests (Anthony 2005, 196). This harmonious relationship among ASEAN member states was challenged once the Association decided to enlarge in 1997. What had come to be known as the ASEAN Way in terms of its interstate conflict management was challenged when putative member state Cambodia experienced a political coup, delaying it membership. ASEA N insisted that the intrastate conflict be resolved via peaceful and fair elections (Camilleri 2005, 187). With the enlargement of ASEAN in 1997, it was no longer possible to merely rely on concepts of shared interests and mutual trust as a method for managing conflicts. Even so not much modifications were made to the ASEAN Way of managing regional conflicts either at the interstate or the intrastate level. Ultimately, ASEAN member states are bound by the doctrine of non-interference in the case of intrastate conflicts and decision making relative to interstate conflicts are managed by “consensus or unanimity” (Sridharan 2008, 2). Be that as it may, ASEAN ministers took an unprecedented approach to Burma’s arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi who had headed a non-violent protests against human rights violations in Burma. In a 2003 meeting of ASEAN ministers, the ministers uncharacteristically ignored the principle of non-interference and called for Aung San Suu Kyi’s release. Previously, ASEAN had historically and consistently adhered to the doctrine of non-interference in matters involving intrastate affairs (Arendshorst 2009, 102). Implicitly, the doctrine of non-interference would be compromised by the implementation of the ASEAN Charter in December 2008. The Charter called upon ASEAN member states to establish and respect the rule of law and human rights in a manner consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Right. Even so, ASEAN continued to focus its attention on non-interference and instead of enforcing the human rights regime with respect to Burma, ASEAN resumed its constructive engagement approach. A human rights body was established, but was not bestowed with enforcement authority. The human rights body was merely intended to promote rather than enforce human rights throughout the region (Arendshorst 2009, 113). Ultimately, ASEAN started out as an organization aimed at resolving regional conflict and preventing intra-mural conflict by virtue of diplomacy and cooperation. The emphasis has always been on consultation and cooperation guided by the principle of non-interference. In this regard, just as prior to enlargement, the role of force has occupied a minimal role in intra-mural conflicts, it continues to do so after enlargement (Alagappa 1998, 108). The Cambodian crisis in 1997 underscores the significance of non-interference under the ASEAN intramural conflict management framework. During this time ASEAN set up the ASEAN Troika which is an ad hoc organization comprised of foreign ministers of the ASEAN Standing Committee which is used to respond to regional conflicts. However, Troika expressly prohibits dealing with intrastate conflicts (Sridharan 2008, 12). Although, ASEAN has demonstrated a willingness to intervene in intra-state conflict, it has continued to remain non-committing in this regard. The doctrine of non-interference continues to be the cornerstone of its approach to intrastate conflicts despite enlargement of the Association since 1997. Interstate conflicts also continue to guiding by concepts of cooperation and consultation. While this invariably means that ASEAN’s approach to intramural conflict management is characterized by avoidance or consensus, it has worked for the most part. The evidence speaks for itself. Since its inception, ASEAN has not had to deal with interstate war and has managed to prevent intrastate conflicts infecting the region. 2. Evaluate the ASEAN’s record in managing its relationships with external actors in the Asia-Pacific region? ASEAN has a history of engaging external actors via dialogue under the auspices of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and more recently the East Asian Summit (EAS) (Siddique and Kumar 2003, 472). The US has been an important and essentially dominant external actor in Southeast Asia in general both during and after the Cold War era. Both geopolitically and economically, the US has been an important external actor in this region. Although US involvement and interest in the region decline after the Cold War, the war on terror refueled US interest in the region (Jones and Smith 2006, 64). ASEAN also manages relations with China via multilateral agreements and through dialogue in much the same manner as it does with the US. Even so, ASEAN is careful that engagement with China is balanced by engagement with other powers in Asia. For example, Japan was previously Southeast Asia’s primary external economic partner. With China’s rise, Japan’s appeal diminished somewhat, but vary of forging excessively close ties with China, has forced ASEAN to ensure that it continues to engage with other Asian powers, such as Japan (Hsiao, Xiao and Lin 2009, 259). Major external powers have also indorsed ASEAN’s conflict management scheme by participating in it from time to time. Participation is facilitated by virtue of the ARF and the EAS. ARF which is comprised of more than 24 Asia-Pacific nations is aimed at encouraging and cultivating dialogue on issues of peace and security. The ARF follows from the ASEAN way in that it manages conflict relative to peace and security on consultation and cooperation. The EAS which convened in 2005 for the first time, also provides for extra-regional engagement with ASEAN (Sridharan 2008, 18). ASEAN has also been willing to take interstate and inter-regional conflicts to international bodies rather than to use the ARF and the EAS. This is evidenced by regional states willingness to take interregional and interstate conflicts to international arbitration. For instance, a dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over maritime issues was taken to the International Court of Justice. The claim involved jurisdiction over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan located off the coast f Borneo (Weatherbee 2005, 131). Subsequently, Singapore and Malaysia took other claims over disputed territory to the International Court for resolution. There were at least two other claims. One involved competing claims over Pedra Branca, another island. Another claim arose over competing claims over Johor Straits (Sridharan 2008, 19). The fact is, ASEAN states have no difficulty with looking to external actors for resolving interstate conflicts and this exemplifies ASEAN’s willingness to embrace external actors by virtue of extra-regional means, although EAS and ARF are useful tools for managing both inter-regional and interstate relations. Ultimately, ASEAN’s management of its relationship with external actors is guided by a resolution of two competing aims and objectives. ASEAN is keenly aware of the need for foreign or outside capital in the development of its economy. The Association is also aware that engagement and cooperation with external actors is entirely significant for maintaining and promoting regional stability and economic growth. At the same time, ASEAN wants to assert its independence and to ensure that external actors appreciate that it is strong enough to defend its own against threats and influences of unfriendly external actors. In other words, ASEAN wants its member states to “become less reliant on external actors” for both security and economic support, but at the same time engage with external actors as necessary to promote economic and security aspirations (Emmers 2003, 14-15). As a result of the ASEAN Ha Noi Summit in 1998, a subsequent Ho Noi Plan of Action was approved. Under this Plan of Action ASEAN accentuated the role of external partners in ASEAN. Its main interest in external partnership was for economic development under the auspices of dialogue. Dialogue partners include relations with Japan, China, the US, Canada, the Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand among others. These dialogue partnerships are dictated by global changes and regional needs and interest and are primarily promulgated via multilateralism. Accepting the interdependence that characterizes the international community in the globalization era, ASEAN has also opened up relations based on economic and security cooperation with non-dialogue partners such as intergovernmental organizations which include the Economic Cooperation Organization, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Rio Group, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, and the South Pacific Forum (Emmers 2003, 14-15). In the final analysis, ASEAN manages its relationship with external actors in a manner consistent with its internal mandate of cooperation and consultation. 3. How successful has been ASEANs role in promoting regional economic integration? Throughout its history, ASEAN has always emphasized its desire to promote economic integration in the region of Southeast Asia (Kendall and Park 1998, 141). Following the Asian economic crisis in the 1990s, ASEAN has been more aggressive in its desire for regional economic integration (Aggarwal and Urata 2006, 233). The crisis drew attention to the need for fostering an East Asian Community that advanced the significance of East Asian economic cooperation, particularly with respect to the financial industries. The result was the cultivation of regional economic cooperation in East Asia. To this end, the ASEN Plus Three Summit has a pivotal role in fostering regional economic cooperation in East Asia (Aggarwal and Urata 2006, 234). ASEAN efforts at supporting and facilitation regional economic integration is via the auspices of trade liberalization. This is achieved via mechanisms that promote Preferential Trading Arrangements and the Common Effective Preferential Tariff. Essentially, these tools ensure that lower income states in the region have access to markets throughout Southeast Asia (Daquila 2007, 143). More specific and direct economic integration is accomplished via the 1995 implementation of the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services which was indorsed by the ASEAN Trade and Industry Minister for the liberalization of trade across the region in air transport, business services, construction, financial services, maritime transport, tourism, construction and telecommunications (Daquila 2007, 143). The first major step taken by ASEAN in terms of promoting regional economic integration was the implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement in 1992 (AFTA) (Kirmani and Calika 1994, 125). The purpose of the AFTA is to promote the region’s competitive edge as a single unit. This is accomplished requiring members to commit to the elimination of barriers to trade both tariff and non-tariff in nature over a period of 15 years. The idea is to promote economic efficiency as well as greater competition and productivity throughout the region (Kirmani and Calika 1994, 125). In 2003, ASEAN established the ASEAN Economic Community which was founded on a three-tiered policy framework. This policy framework included community of security, economic integration, and cooperation along socio-cultural lines. The ASEAN Economic community was formed to correspond with the economic integration policy of ASEAN (Soesastro 2005, Ch.2). Ultimately the ASEAN Economic Community aims at creating an environment characterized by the free flow of goods, services, capital and even economic development and the reduction of poverty and economic gaps by the year 2020 (Soesastro 2005, Ch.2). In order to monitor and follow the effectiveness of the ASEAN Economic Community, the ministers set up a High-Level Task Force (HLTF) to follow-up on a study commission by the ASEAN Economic Community. The study was conducted by McKinsey and Company and was referred to as the ASEAN Competitiveness Study. Ultimately, the study set out a set of recommendations for improving regional economic integration and the HLTF is also working with economic experts and advisors in the region (Soesastro 2005, Ch.2). By taking this approach, ASEAN is ensuring that strategies and policies adopted for regional economic integration take into account challenges that not only exist but challenges that can arise in the future. ASEAN accomplishes its regional economic integration policies as espoused in the ASEAN Economic Community framework by looking outward to economic partners outside of the region. In this regard it has set up Free Trade Agreements particularly with China, Japan and the Republic of Korea which is known as the ASEAN +3. These Free Trade Agreements are extended to ensure that each ASEAN member state benefits from the arrangements. For instance, Singapore’s primary strength is its (Foreign Direct Investments) FDI friendly laws and therefore Singapore benefits from the provision of FDI FTAs. Countries with an emphasis on labor will benefit from the provision services. For instance, automobile parts can be made in ASEAN states for automobiles made in Japan. Similarly, ASEAN state with agricultural and marine resources benefit from FTAs that require exports in those regions in ASEAN states that have those corresponding resources (Soesastro 2005, Ch.2). In the final analysis, ASEAN has taken its role in promoting economic integration in the region very seriously and has taken a holistic approach to it. In other words, integration is viewed as only possible via equity. In this regard, ASEAN has taken steps to ensure that lower income countries in the region are able to participate in the markets both at home and abroad. This ensures that all ASEAN member states are able to compete for a place in both regional and international markets. Bibliography Acharya, A. (2001) Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. Routledge. Acharya, A. and Johnston, A. (2007) Crafting Cooperation: Regional Internationl Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Aggarwal, V. and Urata, S. (2006) Bilateral Trade Arrangements in the Asia-Pacific. Taylor and Francis. Alagappa, M. (1998) “International Politics in Asia: The Historical Context” cited in Alagappa, M. (ed) Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences. Stanford University Press. Anthony, M. (2005) Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyong the ASEAN Way. Institute of SEA Studies. Arendshorst, J. (2009) “The Dilemma of Non-Interference: Myanmar, Human Rights, and the ASEAN Charter”. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Vol. 8(1): 102-121. Camilleri, J. (2005) Regionalism in the New Asia-Pacific Order. Edward Elgar Publishing. Daquila, T. (2007) “Regional Economic Integration in Southeast Asia: Case of ASEAN”. Asian Economic and Political Issues, Vol. 11: 141-165. Emmers, R. (2003) Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and ARF. Rougledge. Hsiao, H.; Xiao, X. and Lin, C. (2009) Rise of China: Beijing’s Strategies and Implications for the Asia-Pacific. Taylor and Francis. Jetty, R. (2003) “Conflict Management Strategies in ASEAN: Perspectives for SAAR” The Pacific Review Vol. 16(1): 53-76. Jones, D. and Smith, M. (2006) ASEAN and East Asian International Relations: Regional Delusion. Edward Elgar Publishing. Kendall, J. and Park, D. (1998) East Asian Economic Issue. World Scientific. Kirmani, N. and Calika, N. (1994) International Trade Policies: Background Papers. International Monetary Fund. Soesastro, N. (2005) “ASEAN Economic Community: Concept, Costs, and Benefits” cited in Hew, D. (ed) Roadmap to an ASEAN Economic Community, Volume 2003. Institute of SEA Studies. Siggique, S. and Kumar, S. (2003) The 2nd ASEAN Reader. Institute of SEA Studies. Sridharan, K. (March 2008) “Regional Organizations and Conflict Management: Comparing ASEAN and SAARC. Working Paper 33. Weatherbee, D. (2005) International Relations in Southeast Asia: The Struggle for Autonomy. Rowman and Littlefield. Read More