By George I. H Cooke
‘A people-oriented and
people-centered ASEAN’ are among the core principles of the Philippines’
chairmanship of the South East Asian grouping which marked its 50th
anniversary in early August 2017. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte identified the
people of the sub-region to be at the heart of community-development and
stressed that people want ‘a stable source of livelihood, a roof over one’s
head, quality education for their children, affordable healthcare, a peaceful
and stable government and a dynamic economy.’ Hailing from a democracy in Asia,
Duterte’s attention is justified, yet questions arise over the progress made in
five decades, the prosperity wave in most of South East Asia and most importantly
the impact of ASEAN on the people.
Half a century
constitutes a significant milestone for reflection and review. Yet it also
presents an opportunity to address challenges which could in time, overwhelm
the grouping and even subsume in the long term. Regional groupings which made integration
‘fashionable’ over the last century have seen a diverse array of associations
sprouting across the world. While the European Union (EU) and its initial Coal
and Steel Pact paved the way for the countries of West Europe to converge,
membership grew with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the wave of independence
in most of East Europe after the Cold War. More than seven decades after the
Coal and Steel Pact, it remains uncertain whether the current level of
integration was first envisaged. Whilst Britain cast a shadow over the Union
with Brexit, the concept of integration is the most challenged.
Other regional bodies,
though not comparable, have attempted to follow a similar course. In 1967, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand sought to create a model based on
unity, solidarity and cooperation. The Founding Fathers of ASEAN, the Foreign
Ministers of these five countries signed the five-articled ASEAN Charter in
Bangkok commencing a journey that would see Brunei Darussalam join nearly two decades
later in 1984, Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia two years
later. They all called for strengthened solidarity, adaptation to times,
development of a framework, and the upliftment of a region. The then Philippine
Foreign Secretary, Narciso Ramos explained that the negotiation process ‘truly
taxed the goodwill, the imagination, the patience and understanding of the five
participating Ministers.’ Resolute on the need for cooperation, he identified
that their ‘fragmented economies…carry the seeds of weakness in their
incapacity for growth, and their self-perpetuating dependence on the advanced,
industrial nations.’
Ramos and Duterte sing
off the same sheet. They both envision the grouping making substantial
progress. The difference is that they spoke fifty years apart. In 1967, Ramos
wanted ASEAN to ‘marshal the still untapped potentials of this rich region
through more substantial united action.’ The noble aspirations were expressed
at a time when Vietnam was in conflict and American forces were present. Fifty years
later though not Vietnam at war, and despite American forces still being present,
though in limited numbers and for varying reasons, the countries have
prospered.
Statistics from member
states in ASEAN indicate progress. While the total population grew from 317
million in 1990 to 617 million in 2012, total GDP expanded from US$334 billion
to US$ 2, 311 billion during that same period, and bound to US$2.6 trillion
last year. Total trade of these ten countries rose from US$ 306 billion in 1990
to US$ 2, 436 billion, while intra-regional trade increased from US$144 billion
to US$602 billion. This indicates that in 1990 intra-regional trade amounted to
nearly 50% of total trade of the ASEAN region while in 2012 it had dipped to 24%.
This halving of
intra-regional trade comes despite the Association planning for a common
economic programme since 2007, the ASEAN Economic Community. Based on four
pillars of a single market and production base, competitive economic region,
equitable economic development and integration in the globalized economy, the
Community is geared towards harnessing the capacity of a regional economy which
is the seventh-largest in the world, and a population estimated to amount to 620
million at present, making it the third largest third in Asia after China and
India. This reduction in intra-regional trade could be attributed to new
ventures and trading opportunities outside the region which attracted the
attention of ASEAN member states.
Despite the
opportunities that exist for the region, it is clear that challenges abound.
From an absence on interest in forging a political or monetary union, to the divide
in development between founding and new member states, the difficulty of forging
an ASEAN identity and the concern over language, all contribute towards withholding
progress. The lack of a strong secretariat, as is the experience with the South
Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), also lends to a lack of
promotion of the regional identity. The European Commission was established (EC)
to look after all matters regional. Tasked with promoting the interests of the Union,
the EC is unlike any body within other regional groupings. The centre is
strong, hence the attribution of the degree of progress experienced in the EU
model. ASEAN is not alone in this regard, but neither are those other bodies as
old as ASEAN.
Will ASEAN look at creating
a single political entity or prefer to merely profess political cooperation and
have leaders meet frequently? Is the region keen on merging national economies in
producing a common market? Are member states focused on building their own
national economies or truly strengthening regional capacity? Have the people of
the member states, from all walks of life been able to grasp the operation of ASEAN?
Has ASEAN reached beyond the leaders and the private sectors of the member
states?
Until and unless the
challenges ahead are addressed in the spirit of forging a common identity, the
success attributed to the ASEAN region could well be attached to individual
countries, their own economic planning and development programmes, rather than have
it ascribed to regionalism. It is remarkable that success has been made, but
the question pivots on the realization that it is the political arena that brags
about it. People need to experience the fruits of integration, and people will
forge much more than just the identity of ASEAN, that was first envisaged. Only
then will ‘a people-oriented and people-centered ASEAN’ be created.
