ASEAN COMMUNITY BUILDING; Collective Challenges, Opportunities and Strategies
ASEAN COMMUNITY BUILDING;
Collective Challenges, Opportunities and Strategies[1]
Yudha Akbar[2]
Introduction
The cooperation and benefits of ASEAN have been very tremendously considered as the rocketing development of this such regional organization. This August, ASEAN has come to the age of 38 which brings the opportunities and challenges how this association could possibly achieve its collective targets and future achievements. Under the framework of the Bali Concord II, the ASEAN leaders defined the specific measures for the ASEAN Security Community (ASC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). These are considered as ASEAN three pillars to support the community-building of ASEAN in the year of 2020. The leaders then envisaged that the ASC would bring ASEAN’s political and security cooperation to a higher plane and would ensure that ASEAN Member Countries live with peace with the world in a just harmonious environment. The success of this association is attributed not only to increasing economic integration and political and security cooperation as other regional organizations but also to the “ASEAN Way” that makes ASEAN unique. The ASEAN Way is a harmonious combination of national priorities and the Association’s interests, and a dynamic, wise and flexible approach that enables ASEAN to optimize its geo-political regional strength. That is also the way ASEAN take the advantage of the cultural, social, political and economic diversity of member countries to turn challenges into opportunities[3]. ASEAN has been successful because its members have a very strong commitment to cooperation. Cooperation for the benefits for all and cooperation for stability and peace of the region. This is a very important hallmark of ASEAN.
ASEAN Community as the Maturity of Entity
The development of ASEAN’s three pillars is being the milestone of ASEAN evolution which surely has been interpreted as a forward-leaping move of this association to strengthen its solidity and cooperation. It is obviously seen that in the early times of ASEAN’s establishment, the founding nations faced a lot of obstacles related to global political constellation upon the influence of two-leading super powers in terms of cold war, suspicion happened among the neighboring countries, anxiety to domination one nation upon another, and territorial conflicts as inheritance of colonialism in this region have continued adding the existing problems of ASEAN. However, ASEAN has shown strong commitment to realize its cooperation in certain fields such as in economy namely ASEAN Free Trade Area (1992), in politics and security namely Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration (ZOPFAN/1971), Declaration of ASEAN Concord (1976), Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC/1976), ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea (1992), the ASEAN Regional Forum (1995), Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon – Free Zone (1995), ASEAN Vision 2020 (1997), the ASEAN Troika (2000), Declaration on the Conduct Parties in the South China Sea (2002), and Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (2003). These enriched commitments consequently empower ASEAN existence and essence.
The founding of ASEAN Community needs to be comprehended as an ongoing process that supported by all parties. The current domination of state actors in administering the direction of ASEAN’s cooperation should be equalized by larger roles of ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization (AIPO), interests groups, and more importantly by ASEAN’s people. In this way, an endeavor to make ASEAN downs to earth is conducting socialization and benefits sharing to comprehensively all walks of life and community levels. Education would be the most capable instrument to do this task. ASEAN should encourage its member countries to integrate information about ASEAN to their school curriculum. This knowledge empowerment should be educated to young generations who will be the future leaders and continue this ASEAN’s cooperation.
Myanmar and Non-Interference Principle of ASEAN
We surely cannot avoid discussing about human rights violation in Myanmar related to its recent political and security development. Myanmar finally did not take its turn in leading ASEAN in 2006 – 2007 for the sake of concentrating on national reconciliation and implementing Roadmap to Democracy while maintaining ASEAN’s relations to dialog partners. This Myanmar’s political step, of course, could be viewed in many different angles. Some argued that Myanmar’s decision had given such political signal which claimed ASEAN capable to solve its internal problems but some also captured it as the effect of economic and political pressures by European Union (EU) and United States (US). If so, it can strongly indicate that ASEAN’s independence has come to critical condition although ASEAN has good relations with both EU and US in terms of Asia – Europe Meeting (ASEM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). ASEAN’s independence is worth preserving if ASEAN is willing to bring its community into reality. Myanmar’s deferment has become negative precedent for ASEAN’s future. This can possibly happen to Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam if they experience domestic cases with international impact and they will be “rewarded” external pressures as well.
Myanmar’s case has given us opportunity to criticize one of ASEAN principles namely non-interference. This principle obliges ASEAN Member Countries to respect sovereignty of each of theirs and not to interfere other internal problems. It has been well proven that this principle able to keep the harmony and minimize conflict potentials. ASEAN non- interference has a historical basis in the foundations of the organization itself. The Bangkok Declaration of 1967, which established ASEAN, introduced the notion of “equality and partnership”. The TAC, the cornerstone of all ASEAN relations, enshrines in Article 10 the right of every state to make national policy free from external subversion or coercion[4]. However, we need to analyze whether this principle is still relevant to ASEAN after what it has done to Myanmar. We necessarily have to redefine this non-interference principle and also its operational framework especially the implementation of ASEAN’s constructive engagement to Myanmar. ASEAN’s challenges in coming years will be more complicated. In addition to redefining non-interference principle, we also need consensus how to prepare some adjustments in the event that redefinition erupts multi-interpretations. Redefining non – interference principle is not a final evaluation of ASEAN in welcoming its community 2020. ASEAN must intensify its code of conduct to be more applicable and solution-oriented. It should be noted that ASEAN succeeded developing ARF from focusing only on confidence building measures for the past twelve years to the level of preventive diplomacy which was recently agreed in ARF meeting in Vientiane. This has ensured ASEAN to necessarily develop its code of conduct internally to answer the challenges particularly those are the dispute settlements in the conflicts of territorial.
ASEAN External Relations and Their Prospects
ASEAN is known as an association which has solid external relations. ASEAN relations with its dialog partners have been conducted in a good way. Many dialogue partners have signed TAC including New Zealand and Mongolia in last 38th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. Australia has also taken important role in keeping its relations with ASEAN by signing Declaration of Intention to Accede to the TAC. Signing TAC is also meant to be pre-qualification for entering East Asia Summit (EAS) that will be held in Kuala Lumpur in upcoming December. The concept of EAS is intended to be inclusive and not necessarily to be duplicating ASEAN+3. To differ ASEAN+3 and EAS, ASEAN must invite non-ASEAN+3 countries. It must be understood that EAS is not an ASEAN enlargement which can minimize ASEAN’s roles especially if EAS is transformed into East Asia Community (EAC) that globally echoed by Malaysia. Furthermore, ASEAN must be a leader in establishing EAS and ASEAN must be able to choose and give priority to its own interests. ASEAN should not let EAS take ASEAN’s recent concentration on building community and become a possible overlapping to ASEAN’s vision. ASEAN relations to countries in other region have been an important part of its development. ASEAN – European Union relations in the framework of ASEM could support this notion but ASEAN does not seem to take bigger advantages of it. ASEAN actually could take EU as a partner in developing economic and political cooperation and socio-cultural as well without giving less attention that these two regions have various differences. EU is internationally recognized as an entity that tremendously concerns on human rights enforcement. They have human rights mechanism and court to support their campaign on human rights. On the other hand, ASEAN shall understand that regional mechanism on human rights enforcement is completely needed to answer the challenges for building ASEAN community 2020. It has been obviously clear that human rights along with environmental degradation and terrorism are international issues which allow international community to intervene certain countries owning these cases. The establishment of ASEAN human rights mechanism and court will strengthen regional human rights enforcement in accordance with its regional culture so the clash of universality and cultural relativity in terms of human rights enforcement in ASEAN would be lessened.
Economic Obstacles and Strategies
Dynamics and flexibility have been maintained to respect the diversity of ASEAN Member Countries is worth preserving in coming future but in the same time, economic, social, cultural and political gaps do still exist. These gaps should not be deemed to be customary differences but should be resolved. The gaps, today, do not only happen among inter-ASEAN Member Countries but also in intra-member countries such as between Eastern and Western part Indonesia. Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) has been a strategy to minimize those gaps and should remain applicable and consistently implemented. In economic angle, ASEAN must be able to integrate economic sources which depend on member countries’ willingness to open their market (market sharing). In the reality, market sharing is not well implemented because there is a tendency that every member country has different way in transforming their national economic interests. Moreover, there is influence of international environment e.g. individual member country’s economic cooperation with non-ASEAN Member Countries. ASEAN Member Countries have considered traditional markets namely US, Europe and Japan as more promising market than ASEAN itself. ASEAN should realize that AFTA has obstacles in implementation since, if we apply the theory of comparative advantage, ASEAN Member Countries mostly have same products which cause them unable to be competitive. Therefore, ASEAN must formulate alternatives to maximize the role of AFTA in generating ASEAN Member Countries’ economic growth. ASEAN then has endorsed eleven priority sectors for integration as follows: wood-based products, automotives, rubber-based products, textiles and apparels, agro-based products, fisheries, electronics, e-ASEAN, healthcare, air travel and tourism. The AEC shall ensure that the deepening and broadening of integration of ASEAN shall be accompanied by technical and development cooperation in order to address the development divide and accelerate the economic integration of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam so that the benefit of economic integration are shared. These goals are being pursued through IAI and the Roadmap for ASEAN Integration of ASEAN (RIA)[5]. ASEAN’s efforts in improving the quality and competitiveness of those eleven priority sectors should not only be in the level of decision makers but also should reach small and medium enterprises which have limited access to that policy socialization. There will be beneficial if ASEAN could possibly conduct the socialization through seminars, comparative studies and trainings in order to monitor the implementation of those eleven economic sectors development. After that, ASEAN must classify the received data which indicate how ASEAN Member Countries could commit their sectors development so that ASEAN’s solutions on economic obstacles experienced by member countries would be necessarily granted.
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Strategies to Strengthen the Community
ASEAN cooperation in social and culture matters related to Plan of Actions of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community have four core elements. First, building a community of caring societies to address issues of poverty, equity, and human development. Second, managing the social impact of economic integration by building a competitive human resource base and adequate systems of social protection. Third, enhancing environmental sustainability and sound environmental governance. Fourth, strengthening the foundations of regional social cohesion towards an ASEAN Community in 2020[6]. These four core elements have to precisely meet the needs of ASEAN people in developing the capacity and growth of their daily social and cultural lives. For that purpose, ASEAN needs to protect the human security of ASEAN people which have wider implications in life and the development of environment quality. The preservation of environment in ASEAN, so far, has been only in the level of mapping of environmental problems, conducting activities and environment studies. Notwithstanding, ASEAN has implemented some endeavors in preserving environment but working groups e.g. ASEAN Senior Official on Environment (ASOEN) have not contributed effectively in solving environmental degradation. Forest fire and illegal logging have only been overcome bilaterally or by certain related countries. Next time, ASEAN is hopefully establishing dispute settlements of environmental degradation which have orientations of common interests of environment preservation and also
economic consideration since ASEAN Member Countries are developing countries. That dispute settlement should meet those two orientations.
Last but not least, ASEAN has been famous for its action plans but relatively poor in implementation. This notion is based on problems in ASEAN Secretariat. This secretariat has only 50 staffs to organize 700 ASEAN meetings annually. Furthermore, one of the most influential factors to ASEAN’s incompetence in running its action plans is organizational mechanism which unable to support inter- sector coordination in both national and committee levels[7]. ASEAN must realize that ASEAN Secretariat is no longer to be supportive element in ASEAN cooperation but it should be the center of plan development and implementation. Enlarging and intensifying the function of ASEAN Secretariat should not be considered as supranational organization so that ASEAN Secretariat must keep collectivity and ASEAN Way as its basis of organizational actions.
Conclusion
ASEAN has come to its more mature organizational level that directs its cooperation to the ASEAN Community building. ASEAN, of course, will not have its community easily since ASEAN faces various challenges. Economic cooperation is one of the pillars which is urgently evaluated and improved in order to minimize the gaps. In economic and political cooperation, ASEAN must take a lesson from Myanmar’s withdrawal in leading ASEAN. This controversy has become negative precedent for ASEAN's independence. Internally, ASEAN should redefine non-interference principle and the implementation of code of conduct as strategies in keeping ASEAN relevant to encounter challenges in future ASEAN cooperation especially in building ASEAN community 2020. To transform plans into actions, besides strengthening the ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN is requested to comprehensively provide larger space for people-to-people contact and caring societies since the community is not only a state actor’s domination.
[1] This paper is presented in seminar on Challenges and Opportunities Toward ASEAN Community 2020,
conducted by Department of International Relations of Universitas Nasional – Jakarta, August 11, 2005.
[2] Student of International Relations Studies of Universitas Nasional
[3] H.E. Mr. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, ASEAN Lecture, in http://aseansec.org (28/07/05)
[4] Yu-Ping Chan, Standing by ASEAN in Crisis, in http://hir.harvard.edu/articles (28/07/05)
[5] ASEAN Annual Report 2003-2004. Pg. 16
[6] The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Plan of Action, Vientiane, Laos, 29 November 2004
[7] Ganewati Wuryandari and Zatni Arby, Masa Depan ASEAN, in Menuju ASEAN Vision 2020: Tantangan dan Inisiatif, Puslitbang Politik dan Kewilayahan Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, Jakarta-2000. Pg. 173
Collective Challenges, Opportunities and Strategies[1]
Yudha Akbar[2]
Introduction
The cooperation and benefits of ASEAN have been very tremendously considered as the rocketing development of this such regional organization. This August, ASEAN has come to the age of 38 which brings the opportunities and challenges how this association could possibly achieve its collective targets and future achievements. Under the framework of the Bali Concord II, the ASEAN leaders defined the specific measures for the ASEAN Security Community (ASC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). These are considered as ASEAN three pillars to support the community-building of ASEAN in the year of 2020. The leaders then envisaged that the ASC would bring ASEAN’s political and security cooperation to a higher plane and would ensure that ASEAN Member Countries live with peace with the world in a just harmonious environment. The success of this association is attributed not only to increasing economic integration and political and security cooperation as other regional organizations but also to the “ASEAN Way” that makes ASEAN unique. The ASEAN Way is a harmonious combination of national priorities and the Association’s interests, and a dynamic, wise and flexible approach that enables ASEAN to optimize its geo-political regional strength. That is also the way ASEAN take the advantage of the cultural, social, political and economic diversity of member countries to turn challenges into opportunities[3]. ASEAN has been successful because its members have a very strong commitment to cooperation. Cooperation for the benefits for all and cooperation for stability and peace of the region. This is a very important hallmark of ASEAN.
ASEAN Community as the Maturity of Entity
The development of ASEAN’s three pillars is being the milestone of ASEAN evolution which surely has been interpreted as a forward-leaping move of this association to strengthen its solidity and cooperation. It is obviously seen that in the early times of ASEAN’s establishment, the founding nations faced a lot of obstacles related to global political constellation upon the influence of two-leading super powers in terms of cold war, suspicion happened among the neighboring countries, anxiety to domination one nation upon another, and territorial conflicts as inheritance of colonialism in this region have continued adding the existing problems of ASEAN. However, ASEAN has shown strong commitment to realize its cooperation in certain fields such as in economy namely ASEAN Free Trade Area (1992), in politics and security namely Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration (ZOPFAN/1971), Declaration of ASEAN Concord (1976), Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC/1976), ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea (1992), the ASEAN Regional Forum (1995), Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon – Free Zone (1995), ASEAN Vision 2020 (1997), the ASEAN Troika (2000), Declaration on the Conduct Parties in the South China Sea (2002), and Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (2003). These enriched commitments consequently empower ASEAN existence and essence.
The founding of ASEAN Community needs to be comprehended as an ongoing process that supported by all parties. The current domination of state actors in administering the direction of ASEAN’s cooperation should be equalized by larger roles of ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization (AIPO), interests groups, and more importantly by ASEAN’s people. In this way, an endeavor to make ASEAN downs to earth is conducting socialization and benefits sharing to comprehensively all walks of life and community levels. Education would be the most capable instrument to do this task. ASEAN should encourage its member countries to integrate information about ASEAN to their school curriculum. This knowledge empowerment should be educated to young generations who will be the future leaders and continue this ASEAN’s cooperation.
Myanmar and Non-Interference Principle of ASEAN
We surely cannot avoid discussing about human rights violation in Myanmar related to its recent political and security development. Myanmar finally did not take its turn in leading ASEAN in 2006 – 2007 for the sake of concentrating on national reconciliation and implementing Roadmap to Democracy while maintaining ASEAN’s relations to dialog partners. This Myanmar’s political step, of course, could be viewed in many different angles. Some argued that Myanmar’s decision had given such political signal which claimed ASEAN capable to solve its internal problems but some also captured it as the effect of economic and political pressures by European Union (EU) and United States (US). If so, it can strongly indicate that ASEAN’s independence has come to critical condition although ASEAN has good relations with both EU and US in terms of Asia – Europe Meeting (ASEM) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). ASEAN’s independence is worth preserving if ASEAN is willing to bring its community into reality. Myanmar’s deferment has become negative precedent for ASEAN’s future. This can possibly happen to Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam if they experience domestic cases with international impact and they will be “rewarded” external pressures as well.
Myanmar’s case has given us opportunity to criticize one of ASEAN principles namely non-interference. This principle obliges ASEAN Member Countries to respect sovereignty of each of theirs and not to interfere other internal problems. It has been well proven that this principle able to keep the harmony and minimize conflict potentials. ASEAN non- interference has a historical basis in the foundations of the organization itself. The Bangkok Declaration of 1967, which established ASEAN, introduced the notion of “equality and partnership”. The TAC, the cornerstone of all ASEAN relations, enshrines in Article 10 the right of every state to make national policy free from external subversion or coercion[4]. However, we need to analyze whether this principle is still relevant to ASEAN after what it has done to Myanmar. We necessarily have to redefine this non-interference principle and also its operational framework especially the implementation of ASEAN’s constructive engagement to Myanmar. ASEAN’s challenges in coming years will be more complicated. In addition to redefining non-interference principle, we also need consensus how to prepare some adjustments in the event that redefinition erupts multi-interpretations. Redefining non – interference principle is not a final evaluation of ASEAN in welcoming its community 2020. ASEAN must intensify its code of conduct to be more applicable and solution-oriented. It should be noted that ASEAN succeeded developing ARF from focusing only on confidence building measures for the past twelve years to the level of preventive diplomacy which was recently agreed in ARF meeting in Vientiane. This has ensured ASEAN to necessarily develop its code of conduct internally to answer the challenges particularly those are the dispute settlements in the conflicts of territorial.
ASEAN External Relations and Their Prospects
ASEAN is known as an association which has solid external relations. ASEAN relations with its dialog partners have been conducted in a good way. Many dialogue partners have signed TAC including New Zealand and Mongolia in last 38th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting. Australia has also taken important role in keeping its relations with ASEAN by signing Declaration of Intention to Accede to the TAC. Signing TAC is also meant to be pre-qualification for entering East Asia Summit (EAS) that will be held in Kuala Lumpur in upcoming December. The concept of EAS is intended to be inclusive and not necessarily to be duplicating ASEAN+3. To differ ASEAN+3 and EAS, ASEAN must invite non-ASEAN+3 countries. It must be understood that EAS is not an ASEAN enlargement which can minimize ASEAN’s roles especially if EAS is transformed into East Asia Community (EAC) that globally echoed by Malaysia. Furthermore, ASEAN must be a leader in establishing EAS and ASEAN must be able to choose and give priority to its own interests. ASEAN should not let EAS take ASEAN’s recent concentration on building community and become a possible overlapping to ASEAN’s vision. ASEAN relations to countries in other region have been an important part of its development. ASEAN – European Union relations in the framework of ASEM could support this notion but ASEAN does not seem to take bigger advantages of it. ASEAN actually could take EU as a partner in developing economic and political cooperation and socio-cultural as well without giving less attention that these two regions have various differences. EU is internationally recognized as an entity that tremendously concerns on human rights enforcement. They have human rights mechanism and court to support their campaign on human rights. On the other hand, ASEAN shall understand that regional mechanism on human rights enforcement is completely needed to answer the challenges for building ASEAN community 2020. It has been obviously clear that human rights along with environmental degradation and terrorism are international issues which allow international community to intervene certain countries owning these cases. The establishment of ASEAN human rights mechanism and court will strengthen regional human rights enforcement in accordance with its regional culture so the clash of universality and cultural relativity in terms of human rights enforcement in ASEAN would be lessened.
Economic Obstacles and Strategies
Dynamics and flexibility have been maintained to respect the diversity of ASEAN Member Countries is worth preserving in coming future but in the same time, economic, social, cultural and political gaps do still exist. These gaps should not be deemed to be customary differences but should be resolved. The gaps, today, do not only happen among inter-ASEAN Member Countries but also in intra-member countries such as between Eastern and Western part Indonesia. Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) has been a strategy to minimize those gaps and should remain applicable and consistently implemented. In economic angle, ASEAN must be able to integrate economic sources which depend on member countries’ willingness to open their market (market sharing). In the reality, market sharing is not well implemented because there is a tendency that every member country has different way in transforming their national economic interests. Moreover, there is influence of international environment e.g. individual member country’s economic cooperation with non-ASEAN Member Countries. ASEAN Member Countries have considered traditional markets namely US, Europe and Japan as more promising market than ASEAN itself. ASEAN should realize that AFTA has obstacles in implementation since, if we apply the theory of comparative advantage, ASEAN Member Countries mostly have same products which cause them unable to be competitive. Therefore, ASEAN must formulate alternatives to maximize the role of AFTA in generating ASEAN Member Countries’ economic growth. ASEAN then has endorsed eleven priority sectors for integration as follows: wood-based products, automotives, rubber-based products, textiles and apparels, agro-based products, fisheries, electronics, e-ASEAN, healthcare, air travel and tourism. The AEC shall ensure that the deepening and broadening of integration of ASEAN shall be accompanied by technical and development cooperation in order to address the development divide and accelerate the economic integration of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam so that the benefit of economic integration are shared. These goals are being pursued through IAI and the Roadmap for ASEAN Integration of ASEAN (RIA)[5]. ASEAN’s efforts in improving the quality and competitiveness of those eleven priority sectors should not only be in the level of decision makers but also should reach small and medium enterprises which have limited access to that policy socialization. There will be beneficial if ASEAN could possibly conduct the socialization through seminars, comparative studies and trainings in order to monitor the implementation of those eleven economic sectors development. After that, ASEAN must classify the received data which indicate how ASEAN Member Countries could commit their sectors development so that ASEAN’s solutions on economic obstacles experienced by member countries would be necessarily granted.
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Strategies to Strengthen the Community
ASEAN cooperation in social and culture matters related to Plan of Actions of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community have four core elements. First, building a community of caring societies to address issues of poverty, equity, and human development. Second, managing the social impact of economic integration by building a competitive human resource base and adequate systems of social protection. Third, enhancing environmental sustainability and sound environmental governance. Fourth, strengthening the foundations of regional social cohesion towards an ASEAN Community in 2020[6]. These four core elements have to precisely meet the needs of ASEAN people in developing the capacity and growth of their daily social and cultural lives. For that purpose, ASEAN needs to protect the human security of ASEAN people which have wider implications in life and the development of environment quality. The preservation of environment in ASEAN, so far, has been only in the level of mapping of environmental problems, conducting activities and environment studies. Notwithstanding, ASEAN has implemented some endeavors in preserving environment but working groups e.g. ASEAN Senior Official on Environment (ASOEN) have not contributed effectively in solving environmental degradation. Forest fire and illegal logging have only been overcome bilaterally or by certain related countries. Next time, ASEAN is hopefully establishing dispute settlements of environmental degradation which have orientations of common interests of environment preservation and also
economic consideration since ASEAN Member Countries are developing countries. That dispute settlement should meet those two orientations.
Last but not least, ASEAN has been famous for its action plans but relatively poor in implementation. This notion is based on problems in ASEAN Secretariat. This secretariat has only 50 staffs to organize 700 ASEAN meetings annually. Furthermore, one of the most influential factors to ASEAN’s incompetence in running its action plans is organizational mechanism which unable to support inter- sector coordination in both national and committee levels[7]. ASEAN must realize that ASEAN Secretariat is no longer to be supportive element in ASEAN cooperation but it should be the center of plan development and implementation. Enlarging and intensifying the function of ASEAN Secretariat should not be considered as supranational organization so that ASEAN Secretariat must keep collectivity and ASEAN Way as its basis of organizational actions.
Conclusion
ASEAN has come to its more mature organizational level that directs its cooperation to the ASEAN Community building. ASEAN, of course, will not have its community easily since ASEAN faces various challenges. Economic cooperation is one of the pillars which is urgently evaluated and improved in order to minimize the gaps. In economic and political cooperation, ASEAN must take a lesson from Myanmar’s withdrawal in leading ASEAN. This controversy has become negative precedent for ASEAN's independence. Internally, ASEAN should redefine non-interference principle and the implementation of code of conduct as strategies in keeping ASEAN relevant to encounter challenges in future ASEAN cooperation especially in building ASEAN community 2020. To transform plans into actions, besides strengthening the ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN is requested to comprehensively provide larger space for people-to-people contact and caring societies since the community is not only a state actor’s domination.
[1] This paper is presented in seminar on Challenges and Opportunities Toward ASEAN Community 2020,
conducted by Department of International Relations of Universitas Nasional – Jakarta, August 11, 2005.
[2] Student of International Relations Studies of Universitas Nasional
[3] H.E. Mr. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, ASEAN Lecture, in http://aseansec.org (28/07/05)
[4] Yu-Ping Chan, Standing by ASEAN in Crisis, in http://hir.harvard.edu/articles (28/07/05)
[5] ASEAN Annual Report 2003-2004. Pg. 16
[6] The ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Plan of Action, Vientiane, Laos, 29 November 2004
[7] Ganewati Wuryandari and Zatni Arby, Masa Depan ASEAN, in Menuju ASEAN Vision 2020: Tantangan dan Inisiatif, Puslitbang Politik dan Kewilayahan Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, Jakarta-2000. Pg. 173
posted by Community of ASEAN Studies @ 3:43 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home