New Political and Cultural Issues in ASEAN
ASEAN was born in 1967 as the US was losing its grip on the Vietnam War and SEATO was proving itself a paper tiger. Then a conglomeration of five nations, namely Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines, ASEAN was anti-Communist and afraid of Communist aggression, as some of its member states had collaborated with the US in anti-communist drives. Back then, Thailand and the Philippines had provided military and naval bases, besides offering contingents of their armed forces.By GANGANATH JHA
In 1967 none of the ASEAN partners had diplomatic relations with Communist China or Vietnam, whom they viewed as hostile neighbours and destabilizing forces. They were faced with armed insurgencies, supported by the Communist forces. They faced common threats, and consequently their perception and policies were often complementary.The situation started changing in 1972 when Nixon visited China and a Sino-American rapprochement was initiated. Whereas China was now projected in friendlier fashion, Vietnam was still branded hostile and hegemonic. Efforts were made to isolate Vietnam at the international level, when the US had lost the Vietnam War. Although Vietnam was victorious and succeeded in uniting the country in 1975-76, it felt compelled to military intervention in Cambodia in 1978. The ASEAN countries expressed their alarm and supported the genocidal Khmer Rouge against Vietnam. Together with China they supported the US-evolved 'bleeding Vietnam white' policy. Vietnam remained involved in the Cambodian imbroglio for more than a decade, before its withdrawal. Hence the peace process started with 'Jakarta cocktails' and Vietnam whole-heartedly supported ASEAN initiatives in that endeavour.
Rapprochement
Vietnam's co-operation in the peace process allayed the fears of the ASEAN countries and friendly gestures were exchanged. Vietnam's entry into ASEAN in 1995 changed the organization's politics and culture to a great extent. It paved the path for Burma, Laos, and Cambodia to join the group and hence 'ASEAN-10' came into existence. Their former threat perception changed and ASEAN set course for a new era of development.
An examination of the following areas of co-operation within ASEAN as have existed since 1967 shows that they have changed in the post-Cold War era: an anti-Communist ideology, a common threat perception, a stability plank, a consensus formula, a non-interference principle, and development and order.
The attitudes of the external powers that nurtured ASEAN in the beginning, i.e. the US, Japan, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, also changed. No longer do they view Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam as satellite states. The concept of a 'frontline state' was forgotten and the special emphasis they laid on ASEAN after the summits in Bali (1976), Kuala Lumpur (1977), and Manila (1987) was diluted in the post-Cold War era. Therefore, when the economic crisis gripped the ASEAN region in 1997-98, the external powers suggested that the World Bank and IMF resolve the crisis. There was no support for ASEAN 's idea to establish a 'bail out fund' for coping with the crisis. Neither had these nations welcomed earlier the suggestion of establishing the East Asian Economic Caucus, making critical remarks instead: not only about Dr Mahathir Mohammed, but also about suppression of human rights in the region, particularly in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar.
In retrospect, Vietnam's entry into ASEAN seems to have been a landmark development. Though a welcome decision for reconciliation and regional solidarity, it also changed the ethos and nature of the ASEAN. There were wide-ranging changes in the ideological and cultural moorings, and there was a complete transformation in threat perception. The Chinese advances into the South China Sea and its sovereignty claims generated substantial threats to a number of ASEAN countries. Hence, friendship with Vietnam with the purpose of establishing a common front was felt to be a necessity in the ASEAN countries.
Vietnam's entry enlarged the association and facilitated the acceptance of Laos, Burma, and Cambodia. India became one of the new dialogue partners along with China, Korea, Russia and others. The association, which was politically and ideologically homogeneous in 1967, now became heterogeneous. Economically and technologically, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Burma are far behind Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand and this disparity will remain difficult to be bridge in the near future.
Protectionist barriers
An overview of the political and foreign policies suggests an enormous diversity. Vietnam and Laos are Communist whereas Burma is dictatorial. Brunei has a monarchy and the Philippines a democracy. All of them may have expressed their faith in free trade, yet AFTA has not been successful. Protectionist barriers have not been removed because of the apprehension some partners feel about the goods produced by the developed partners overwhelming them. Singapore has long been beating the drum for free trade in the region and on the point of signing free trade agreements with some extra- regional powers, namely New Zealand and Australia, to prove its point.
Recently the policy of non-interference in one another's internal affairs has again become controversial. It is because of this that ASEAN could not play a meaningful role in resolving the East Timor crisis. It has moreover failed to solve the economic crisis in 1997-98 and to tackle standing political issues like the Spratlys question. Aceh, Moro, Mindanao, and Burma are as yet untouched.
ASEAN proposals to establish growth triangles in sensitive areas have not yet succeeded. Though such a trade zone has proven a success in Johore, Bahru, and Bantam, the credit for its success must go to Singapore. Although BIMSTEC and the EAGT growth areas were tentatively launched, their progress has remained dismal. ASEAN has to evolve a common currency and a common economic platform, without which it cannot hope to prosper, as does the European Union.
However, the most important failure of ASEAN lay with its attitude towards Burma. The democracy movement has been systematically crushed there, and there are constant violations of human rights. ASEAN took a collective stance to change the political system in Cambodia from1979 to 1989, but it has failed to apply the same yardstick in the case of Burma. Their collective wisdom, which is articulated through the 'Constructive Engagement' in relations with Burma, has simply legitimated military rulers.
A balance sheet of positive and negative developments has deep impacts on the functioning of ASEAN. The people in the region are becoming more conscious about their human rights and democracy. Whenever and wherever there is violation of human rights, they are critical. For instance, the public dislikes the extreme punishment to which Anwar Ibrahim was subjected in Malaysia and abhors the violence in East Timor, Aceh, Mindanao, Irian Jaya, and Burma. To sum up the new cultural and political issues, the factors that have assumed importance are democracy and human rights. Authoritarian political systems prevailing in most of the ASEAN countries are changing. Indigenous culture, ethnicity, and civilizations are being reflected in their political systems, and this aspect is an interesting area of study.
Dr Ganganath Jha was an affiliated fellow at IIAS in October 2000 (sponsored by IDPAD). He works at the Division of Southeast Asian Studies and Southwest Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
E-mail: ganganathjha@hotmail.com