ASEAN@50–Finding the Right Equilibrium


August 6, 2017

ASEAN@50–Finding the Right Equilibrium

by Syed Hamid Albar

http://www.thestar.cm.my

Image result for Founding Fathers of ASEANThe Founding ASEAN Leaders on August 8, 1967

ASEAN is a rule-based regional organisation, but the challenge now is to introduce mechanisms compelling member states to play by the rules.

ASEAN embraces its golden jubilee this year. The time is right to understand what worked and what we could have done better, and how do we move ahead as one cohesive alliance against the backdrop of ever-shifting global dynamics.

Following the failures of the Association of South-East Asia (ASA) and Maphilindo  Greater Malayan Federation (MAPHILINDO), have the aims and visions of the five original ASEAN member states which signed the Bangkok Declaration on August 8, 1967 to chart a new future for the region been fulfilled?

The crisp answer would be yes. With 10 members now, the coalition has weathered the ups and downs of member state relationships anchored upon a set of core values.

We call this the “Asean Way”, striking a balance between consensual decision-making and non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs in a show of mutual respect.
Image result for ASEAN  Leaders 2017

We can take pride that the ASEAN region is principally stable and peaceful. The measured pace has helped it to attain this position and ASEAN has done well, taking into account the fact that the region is a microcosm of various religions, languages, ethnicities and cultures.

However, the inter-subjective structure of ASEAN has proven to be a stumbling block in resolving potential flash points or conflicts that could destabilise the region and ASEAN unity due to exposure to geopolitical happenings such as overlapping land and maritime claims, China’s advancing presence and the alleged “cold war” between the United States and China.

Additionally, member countries do not appear to share a common view on what is democracy or human rights. ASEAN is still sensitive on the question of non-interference and its treatment of human rights issues. Reticence to take a firm collective stand, for example on the Rohingya issue in Myanmar, has been a thorn on our side, questioning the very values that ASEAN stands for.

There is undoubtedly a need for deeper examination on challenges confronting ASEAN as it embraces democracy and economic liberalism. Continued denial on this subject will not bode well for sustaining Asean’s credibility and integrity.

Image result for ASEAN Capitals

The ASEAN Economic Community has been firmly established and an integrated people-centred ASEAN has been declared, based on the three pillars of ASEAN under the Bali Concords I & II. But what do these mean?

Has ASEAN been able to build a cohesive and united body, consistent with its Charter? Has it succeeded in building trust and understanding in order to create an ASEAN identity?

For too long, we have made this an exclusive “talk shop” platform for government-to-government dealings, but the time has come for us to recognise that as a political platform, ASEAN must take sustainable and constructive steps to make a firmer collective stand on issues affecting the region.

The institutional and government-centred character of the past must be shed to make way for inclusiveness and relevance to civil society.

These are important to resolve as we have seen how different member states have varying interpretations of the relationship between the individual, state and civil society, and sometimes, the core values of freedom.

Due to rigidly sticking to the issue of sovereignty and non-interference as a regional organisation, ASEAN has been, in critical instances, slow to give its collective or common response to natural disasters like the tsunami, Cyclone Nargis and the haze. If these were a test of our effectiveness, we failed, and it is sometimes quite a wonder how member countries are able to rise above conflicting areas to register healthy political and economic growth.

Malaysia has used the slogan of unity and diversity as a source of its strength. ASEAN must do the same. Otherwise, the differences and diversities of ASEAN can be a threat to peace, stability and security.

There are also frustrations about the rigid application and inflexible processes of ASEAN’s decision-making and yet, we have witnessed how hope and optimism steered the evolution of this organisation.

Beginning its initial journey based on a loose framework of rules, over the years, ASEAN has grown into a full-fledged legal and rule-based regional organisation guided by its Charter. The challenge moving forward will be to introduce mechanisms and enforcement tools compelling member states to play by the rules.

It is encouraging that ASEAN leaders, previously criticised for leaning towards “golf diplomacy”, are more willing to come to the table to confront intractable issues. However, discussions alone will not be enough.

In grappling with complexities the future will bring, we must form meaningful responses to the needs of a changing world. Our actions must not just resonate with governments but also with civil society from all walks of life.

As leaders, we must have the courage to act with gravitas and gumption in the interest of the greater good for the continued growth of our region.

The value proposition for standing together as one coalition is strong. With a total population of 628 million and a combined gross domestic product of US$3 trillion (RM12.9 trillion), the ASEAN region today is a formidable global power bloc from economic, political and security perspectives.

We stand on the cusp of an era that will see Asean leadership make its way into the global order. Thus, in mulling the existential narrative for ASEAN over the next 10 years, we must build greater resilience in our region and tackle existing challenges with all the seriousness we can muster.

ASEAN cannot afford to be lulled into a false sense of security in past glories. Instead, we must take a brave, no-nonsense approach to finding that point of equilibrium that will further elevate our standing amid new realities in the international system.

*Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar was former Foreign Minister. This is one of a special series of articles to mark the 50th anniversary of the regional grouping by the ASEAN members of the Asia News Network. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Tags / Keywords:Asia News Network , Asean 50

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/asean50/2017/08/04/asean50-finding-the-right-equilibrium-asean-is-a-rulebased-regional-organisation-but-the-challenge-n/#VwRwz6u0yw5wBWdR.99

 

6 thoughts on “ASEAN@50–Finding the Right Equilibrium

  1. Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar spoke so much sense made me realize how prejudiced I am.
    Tan Sri is a pendatang Melayu, and is part of the established UMNOb. I am ashamed of myself of not hanging onto the dream Tan Sri wrote so eloquently. //Our actions must not just resonate with governments but also with civil society from all walks of life

  2. Rules and laws are for the ordinary and weak persons. Leaders with power either make laws to exempt themsselves from the approved procedures and laws or ensure that none with enforcement or judicial powers will be willing or able or allowed to perform their prescribed functions.
    Common culture in many countries and companies and religions and NGOs and organizations.
    All may be just celebrations for entertainment!!!!!

    • //Rules and laws are for the ordinary and weak persons.
      Many are there to constrained the rulers from hurting each other. One cannot ignore the fact strong people need to always be fighting amongst the strong also. Many would resort to the weaker ones like myself to be stronger. As such, I would ask for some laws for the weak like myself also. Hopefully, Tan Sri would consider Bersatu as a pendatang Melayu, as some in UmNo already said UMNo is for Welayu sejati only.

  3. Fifty years ago, ASEAN was formed as a respond to the Communist Threat, today its a expansionist, ambitious authoritharian Capitalist China. ASEAN has no great ideological differences just different level of economic development. So in the end, the difference between ASEAN is about MONEY.

    The key to ASEAN is not about decision making as a group. Its about money and development. ASEAN need to set up ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE BANK. It also need its own REGIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT AGENCY. The issue is how to fund it, where its going to get the money given only Singapore is the only developed country. The answer lies in every ASEAN country need to implement forced savings like Singapore and Malaysia, both have shown they create excess capital that can then grouped regionally to fund projects. Singapore and Malaysia excess forced saving is bursting at the seems to invest their excessive capital.

  4. Excess capital can and has been grouped to fund projects and this has also been the objective. Consequently excess saving has been invested their excessive capital in various economic sectors. The objectives were noble and good. This has been a worldwide culture in many developed and developing countries.

    However in most countries the excess funds have accumulated to hundreds of BILLIONS and thus become targets of those in power and professionals and others related/connected to them. Those in power with the professional elite have made laws and procedures to give total and unquestioned control over the BILLIONS to these selected few.

    It is a common perception worldwide that these BILLIONS of EXCESS FUNDS may have been used to advance the agendas of those in power and those connected to them. Another perception may be that these BILLIONS may have been susceptible to MISMANAGEMENT-FRAUD-CORRUPTION-COLLUSION-CRONYISM-EMBEZZLEMENT=BRIBERY-KICKBACKS-NEPOTISM Risks but little may be known to public due to possible classifying any information as SECRET which may result that little if any action may be possible to investigate those involved or take any deterrent action against anyone suspect as the relevant Authorities may also be not willing or able or allowed to perform their prescribed actions as provided by laws under which they were appointed.

    LIKE THE PUBLIC DEBT THERE MAY NEVER BE ANY CASE WHERE THE FUNDS NEED TO BE LIQUIDATED AND THE FUNDS BE RETURNED TO THOSE ENTITLED. Further these Funds may also be like a PYRAMID as there will be new contributors whose funds can be used to pay those who become entitled.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s