In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

13 INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES Dilemmas and Possibilities Simon S. C. Tay INTRODUCTION: ASEAN IN CRISIS AND CHANGE Before the economic and financial crisis that began in mid-1997, ASEAN was acknowledged as one of the most successful regional groupings, outside the European Union (EU). Many of its member states were part of what the World Bank called the “Asian miracle”. In foreign policy too, ASEAN showed a level of influence that belied the fact that its member states were only smallto medium-sized powers. In this mood of confidence and congratulation, ASEAN undertook the project of enlargement to include all ten states of the region. It also undertook to engage the broader region and international community, initiating new international fora, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum and, in the field of security, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). While there was criticism even during the period before the crisis, both ASEAN and the newer undertakings have come under increased scrutiny and questioning since 1997. Critics say that it is little more than a talk shop, and has been ineffective in the face of the crisis. There were concerns in 2000, after the worst of the crisis had receded, that the region may be left behind in the increasingly competitive global environment. Global economic competition from Latin America and Northeast Asia has increased and foreign direct investment no longer seems to give as much attention to ASEAN as it did 243 ISEAS DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE. No reproduction without permission of the publisher: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, SINGAPORE 119614. FAX: (65)7756259; TEL: (65) 8702447; E-MAIL: publish@iseas.edu.sg© 2001 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore 244 Simon S. C. Tay© 2001 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore previously. There are doubts about the willingness of ASEAN members, such as Vietnam and Laos, to proceed with reform to become more open economies. In terms of security too, Southeast Asia as a region is beset with more problems than ever before, with a rise in intra-state conflicts and terrorism. There are also questions over the political legitimacy of some of its members, such as Myanmar. Most notably, the critics have included a number of ASEAN ministers. The Thai Foreign Minister during the crisis period, Surin Pitsuwan, has been associated with efforts to change how ASEAN member states interact, to move them from the principle of non-intervention to one of “flexible engagement”. At the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting held in Bangkok in July 2000, Singapore Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar was perhaps the clearest advocate of reform, calling on ASEAN to “reinvent itself”. These concerns and criticisms relate not so much to the direction and goals set by ASEAN. After all, ASEAN has announced an ambitious and farreaching ASEAN Vision 2020 and, amidst the crisis, undertook to proceed with its implementation of the Hanoi Plan of Action (HPA). ASEAN had also undertaken to speed up the implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), and proposed a “raft of bold measures” to give more assistance and incentives to investors during the crisis. Rather, the concerns and criticisms relate to the implementation of these various action plans. There are those who question the Association’s ability to ensure that its members comply with their undertakings. There is criticism that ASEAN plans of action remain more plans than action. How do ASEAN member states co-operate in economics, security, and other matters of common concern, such as environmental interdependence? How do they try to remain united and cohesive in the face of a vast economic and increasingly political divide between different members? How should the ASEAN member states interact among themselves and with other nonASEAN states and regions? What is the balance between nation, region, and the international community in a globalized world? Such questions have brought increasing focus on the strengths and limits of ASEAN as an institution, and on its processes and norms. There have, in this regard, been unkind comparisons with the example of European integration and the accusation that ASEAN lacks vision and effective unity. ASEAN supporters have traditionally replied that such views misunderstand the nature of the enterprises.They reject the goal of integration and espouse the “ASEAN way”. Such defences continue in the wake of the crisis. In this debate, there has been a tendency to oversimplify positions. One side stands for the status quo: that ASEAN will always be what it is...

Share