The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon (Upated 2nd Edition)

THE “ASEAN WAY”

9 THE “ASEAN WAY” A style of diplomacy or code of conduct that has evolved in intraASEAN relations.1 It has been br ought into regional institutions such as the ASEAN Regional For um (ARF) and Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation for um (APEC) by virtue of ASEAN’s special role within them. Also presented in parallel formulations as the “Asian way”, “APEC way”, or “Asia-Pacific way”, the “ASEAN way” is often contrasted by Asian leaders and policymakers with what they per ceive to be imported W estern notions of diplomacy and multilateralism.2 In contrast to a W estern, “American”, or even “Cartesian” style of diplomacy which some Asians regard as “formalistic” and focused on “legalistic” procedures and solutions, the “ASEAN way” str esses patience, evolution, informality, pragmatism, and consensus. 3 Kusuma Snitwongse calls the “ASEAN way” “a distinct political pr ocess” developed by the association and characterized by “the habit of consultation and accommodation … foster ed by fr equent interaction”.4 The idea of a distinctively ASEAN or Asian way of diplomacy has not been universally accepted, however, and some strong critiques of the concept have been put forwar d. Its origins pr e-date the cr eation of the association in 1967. According to Estrella Solidum, the desire to avoid confrontation and acrimony in international r elations and the importance of 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 9 10 low-key, consensus-based diplomacy can be traced back to ASEAN’s predecessor, the short-lived Association of Southeast Asia (ASA).5 In 1961, the founders of the ASA declared that problems in the region should be resolved using “Asian solutions that contain Asian values”. Solidum says the most important of these values was the use of “very low-key diplomacy [which] avoids fanfare before an agreement is reached”.6 She stresses the importance attached to “invisible ground rules” shared by ASEAN élites. Typically, scholars identify these shared norms as including a preference for informality and for non-legalistic and, thus, nonbinding approaches to diplomacy which allows for consensus, flexibility, and accommodation.7 A central characteristic has been its cautious attitude towards formal institutionalization.8 Singapore’s Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar called thisASEAN’s predilection for “organizational minimalism”.9 Robert Scalapino has described it as a pr ocess of “soft regionalism” or “soft dialogue”10 whileAlastair Iain Johnston uses the term “thin institutionalization”. 11 In essence, all these labels suggest that ASEAN is a dif ferent regional institution from those that have appeared in Europe since World War II.12 Its member states do not seek to cr eate a political union nor does the institution have any supranational authority . Rather, ASEAN is an example of “sover eignty-enhancing regionalism” where most decision-making powers continue to r eside in the various national capitals. ASEAN’s institutional r esources reflect its pr eference for informality. Compared to the European Union (EU), ASEAN has only a modest bureaucratic apparatus, although its Jakarta-based Secretariat has expanded its r ole in recent years.13 Both APEC and the ARF have followed ASEAN’s organizational model. The APEC Secretariat in Singapore is small.14 The ARF has no formal secretariat, although in June 2004 anARF Unit within theASEAN Secretariat was established, fulfilling many of the r oles of a secretariat.15 An ASEAN+3 Unit has also been established and the Chairman’s Statement following the 2005ASEAN+3 Summit “reaffirmed the need to str engthen [it] to coor dinate and implement cooperation”.16 The preference for informality is reflected in the labels used to describe these institutions. ASEAN representatives initially preferred to describe the ARF as a “dialogue for um” rather than the more formal-sounding “multilateral security mechanism”.17 A similar preference for less formal language has affected the ARF’s THE “ASEAN WAY” 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 10 11 inter-sessional process. At the second ARF meeting in 1995, it was agreed to establish inter-sessional working groups. However, China objected to the use of the term working groups and opposed an open-ended timetable because “this smacked of thicker institutionalization.”18 The meeting eventually compromised and designated the groups as inter-sessional support groups (ISGs) and inter-sessional support meetings (ISMs). Many of the same arguments have taken place about institutionalization within APEC. APEC has been referred to as a “consultative mechanism” to clearly distinguish...