Crisis Afflicting the Formation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations - Essay Example

Crisis afflicting the formation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Grade (April 2, International relations: Crisis afflicting the formation of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) The deadline for the ratification of the declaration forming the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was set for the end of 2015 (Goh, 2015). However, the recent failure of the member states establishing the regional bloc to issue a common statement is an indication of a possible failure of the establishment of the regional bloc before the set deadline (Goh, 2015). The South East Asia is a region that is highly disconnected, with physical factors such as forests, mountains and seas playing a major role in dividing the region into separate national territories. Further, the customs and the heterogeneity of the indigenous populations within each national territory as defined by the physical boundaries have concentrated on minding the issues of their own territories, as opposed to focusing on integration of the region. Thus, despite the region having a higher potential for contributing and even influencing the global geopolitical and economic system, the disconnected territories have retained their cultural, political and economic developments within their individual territories (Severino, 2009). Nevertheless, it cannot be argued that the region lacks inter-countries interaction completely. There has existed some interaction among the different areas of the South East Asia, although the interaction has been such minimal as to significantly alter the preservation of the individual cultures of these nations. Consequently, the idea of the formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was one major stride towards bringing this region into a common economic bloc, which would then be able to negotiate its political and economic space in the global geopolitical and economic system (Lee, 2006). There is no doubt that the region could be highly influential on the global platform if it could be united under one umbrella, which would act as its vehicle of international negotiations. However, the preservation of strong individual culture among the nations of the South East Asia region has played a major role in hindering the formation of the regional economic bloc. The competing interests purely based on the uniqueness of the individual culture of each nation has meant that creating a regional bloc that would integrate the South East Asian countries of Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (Basu, 2013). The ASEAN was first established on 8 August 1967, when the five countries came together and signed the Bangkok declaration, which founded ASEAN as a loose organization (Lee, 2006). However, numerous attempts have been put in place since then, to see the ASEAN agreement fully ratified and implemented into the formation of a strong economic bloc consisting of the South East Asia countries. The real intention of forging the united front being for the sake of creating a political and economic platform that would enable these countries manage to negotiate their global space effectively. However, the possible failure of the full implementation of the ASEAN was clearly identifiable since its birth. This is because, the ASEAN was established upon the foundation of three pillars namely the renunciation of the use of force in resolving the political disputes that may arise, respect for sovereignty and nonintervention (Lee, 2006). The three pillars, as can be clearly seen, were simply focused on maintaining and protecting the individuality of each country’s internal political, social and economic systems, thus preserving the individuality of each member state’s unique culture. Therefore, the major weakness associated with the formation of ASEAN right from its inception is that it did not establish a strong dispute resolution mechanism, which would have in turn created orderliness in the manner in which the member states interact (Myanmar, 2005). Further, the major focus of ASEAN since its establishment was to promote economic growth of the region, while fostering political stability and preserving the individual social indemnities o he member states. The Bangkok declaration had sealed the intention of the formation f ASEAN as an economic growth-oriented entity, through stating that the regional bloc sought to accelerate economic growth, social development and cultural identity of the region (Lee, 2006). However, the major interests of the individual nations was much political than socioeconomic. The different nations forming the ASEAN bloc swathe political angle as much more important than merely promoting trade and economic growth between the nations. Thus, deep inside, each nation had its own reasons for wanting the formation of an integrated economic and political bloc binding the South East Asian countries together. Indonesia as a country saw an opportunity to amend its relationship with the neighboring countries which had deteriorated historically, while at the same time eying an opportunity to exercise regional leadership (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). In doing so, Indonesia was seeking to limit the influence of the external powers on the South East Asian region, such as Europe and China, which were increasingly becoming influential in the internal affairs of some of the regional nations. On the other hand, Malaysia wanted to bind together with Singapore and Philippines, so they could prevent Indonesia from its continued aspirations for regional control, which Indonesia had focused on since its early history (Lee, 2006). Singapore on the other hand sought to join the ASEAN, as a way of seeking for alternative security protection mechanism, after the pulling out of the British army in the region. Singapore was highly suspicious of Malaysia, and thus entered the agreement with the intention of first being recognized as an equal state in the region (Lee, 2006). This way, the threat of Malaysia to Singapore would be neutralized, since the two nations would interact as equal parties on the ASEAN platform. Philippines on its side sought to sign the agreement establishing ASEAN, so that it could completely seal its identity as Asian Filipino nation, as opposed to its earlier perceived identity as a pro-European nation in Asia (Guan, 2004). Through being recognized as an equal partner in the regional economic and political bloc, Philippines would have sealed its identity as an Asian nation. Finally, Thailand was joining the regional bloc with the hope that the bloc would eventually become a strong political machinery that would offer political security to the member states. This way, the bloc would avert the threat of insecurity that Thailand was facing from the Asian giants such as China and Japan (Narine, 1997). It is the failure of the ASEAN to take into account the political interest of the member states, rather focusing purely on the economic interest, which served as the a major weakness of the regional bloc since its inception, thus setting the stage for its subsequent crisis and failure. The other factor accounting for the conflict facing the ASEAN regional bloc is the problem of internal diversity. The countries forming the South East Asian region are internally so much diversified, thus speaking in the same voice for the whole population regarding an issue of national importance is always a problem. The region consists of a myriad of diversity in terms of population, culture, region, political systems and geographical factors, all of which play towards hindering the full integration of the region into a common regional bloc (Lee, 2006). The fact that the different nations constituting the South East Asian region are comprised of different ethnicities within the individual countries, while also being confronted by religious, ethnic and linguistic divisions internally, impend the formation of a regional front. The countries that are constantly faced by the linguistic, religious and ethnic challenges are Malaysia, Singapore and Philippines (Webber, 2001). The consequence is that the ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity within these countries poses the challenge of the nations establishing and wholesomely agreeable national cultural and social norm, which would then translate into a regional cohesion. Thus, with the internal cohesion for such nations being a major impediment to national unity, the subsequent formation of a united regional front becomes jeopardized by the lack of common voice from within these nations. The formation of a united and strong international or regional economic bloc requires that there must be a lot of political goodwill that is coming from the member states involved in establishing the regional or international bloc (Lee, 2006). The inter-state diversity is another factor that contributes to the crisis surrounding the effective establishment of the ASEAN regional bloc. Malaysia and Indonesia are countries that are highly pre-disposed to the Islamic religion and culture, while Thailand is largely a Buddhist nation, with Singapore being a highly pre-disposed Confucian state and Philippines a predominantly catholic state (Shimizu, 1998). This religious and cultural difference among the nations forming the ASEAN regional bloc serves as a major impediment to the unification of the interests of the nations, whether on the social or the political perspectives. Consequently, even when the leaders from these nations may have the political goodwill to support the formation of the regional bloc, the cultural, social, religious and linguistic diversity among these nations creates the major crisis requiring being overcome (Webber, 2001). Further, the population diversity of the regions also creates another sociopolitical dilemma for the unification f the region. For example, the region consists of a population mixed with Eurasians, Papuans, Europeans, Chinese and their subsequent hybrids (Lee, 2006). This diversity also impend the formation of a unified sociopolitical interest, thus further impending the formation of the united ASEAN bloc. The solution of the ASEAN crisis is complex to establish, owing to the fact that the factors hindering the formation of the regional bloc are so real, unique and personalized to the region, that it becomes difficult to overcome them. Nevertheless, according to the Theory of Political Realism, a society is governed by objective laws, which have their roots in the human nature, requiring that in order to improve a society, then it is first essential to understand the rules by which the society lives (Morgenthau, 1978). Therefore, overcoming the ASEAN crisis requires that the uniqueness of the ethnic, linguistic and religious culture of the religion is understood, and a regional framework that does not only focus on the economic but also on the social and political integration is established. The first stage of failure of ASEAN was set by the signing of the Bangkok declaration, which overshadowed the social and political interests of the individual nations forming the regional bloc, rather imposing on them an economic perspective alone (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). Thus, to overcome this shortcoming, it is necessary to alter the principles of the Bangkok declaration, and include the political objective of the nations within the pillars upon which the regional bloc is formed. This way, political interests will help unify the cultural and social diversity of the region under a common objective. This would help to overcome the ASEAN crisis. References Basu, D. et al. (2013). The ASEAN economic community: A work in progress. Goh, A. (2015). ASEAN talks fail, no joint statement ASEAN talks fail, no joint statement. CIMB ASEA Research Institute. Guan, B. (2004). ASEANs Regional Integration Challenge: The ASEAN Process. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies 20, 70-94. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. (2008). The ASEAN community: Unblocking the roadblocks. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Lee, M. S. (Fall 2006). ASEAN: brief history and its problems. Korean Minjok Leadership Academy. Morgenthau, H. J. (1978). Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Myanmar, T. (2005). Myanmar in ASEAN: Regional cooperation experience. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Narine, S. (1997). ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the ASEAN way. Asian Survey 37(10), 961-978. Severino, R. (2009). The ASEAN Regional Forum. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Shimizu, K. (1998). Political Economy of Regional Economic Cooperation in ASEAN. Tokyo: Mineruba Shobo. Webber, D. (2001). Two Funerals and a Wedding? The Ups and Downs of Regionalism in East Asia and Asia-Pacific after the Asian Crisis. The Pacific Review 14(3), 339-72. Read More