Regional Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia

2. Regionalism: The Institutional Framework

2 Regionalism: The Institutional Framework The experience of the last half-century shows that while regional cooperation schemes are significantly shaped by interests, ideas and identities, institutions are equally important for sustaining the process. The institutional architecture and its impact on governance has now become a staple in the study of domestic political systems. This was not so in the 1970s and 1980s when formal institutional structures were regarded as less important than understanding the dynamics of competing group interests and cross-cutting identities within a society. But now that good governance has become a critical issue of focus for practitioners and scholars alike, there is a renewed emphasis on institutional factors.1 Failed states and democratization have both pushed the concerns about institutions to the top of the academic and policy-making communityʼs agenda because of the widespread belief that institution building is a vital prerequisite for good governance. What applies at the domestic level is also applicable at the regional and global levels. The concern for institutional strength is reflected in the ongoing debates about the need for reforms in the structure of international organizations like the United Nations. Some regional organizations are also engaged in the task of refurbishing their existing machinery to suit new conditions. It is in this context that 02 Institutional p43-112.indd 43 4/27/07 2:32:12 PM 44 Regional Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia the benefits and shortcomings of the formal machinery of regionalism are discussed here. Our discussion begins with a short comparative sketch of EU and ASEAN institutions. It then moves on to some of the formal and informal mechanisms within ASEAN and SAARC, including the role of summit meetings, the secretariat and the secretary generalʼs role, revenue and funding, and external linkages of these associations. It concludes with suggestions for managing the institutional shortfalls in the two Asian regional arrangements. The focus is no doubt narrow but relevant and what is offered here is a flavour rather than a full recipe. The chapter also deals with inter-sub-regional initiatives, comprising states from South and Southeast Asia as well as sub-regional cooperation in the form of growth triangles. Formal Framework of Cooperation Regionalismʼs institutional apparatus varies from region to region. European regionalism is endowed with an elaborate structure which makes it somewhat unique. In comparison, regionalism in Southeast Asia walks with a light step, so light that it almost levitates. It is not anchored in strong structures and there is no supranational overlay. ASEANʼs simple organizational arrangement has been a subject of comment both within and outside the region. ASEAN came into being after ten years of the birth of the European Economic Community, but it did not emulate the institutional path that the EEC (subsequently called the European Union) followed. Few people allow for it, but the fact is that the EU is much more than 02 Institutional p43-112.indd 44 4/27/07 2:32:12 PM Regionalism: The Institutional Framework 45 an inter-governmental organization because it possesses a special legal status and enjoys a supra-national status in certain designated areas. The term supra-nationality is used “to characterise a political body that has acquired some of the attributes usually associated with a nation, such as political loyalty and decision-making powers — based not on an aggregate of national decisions or those made by representatives of the member states, but rather on those made by the supra-national bodies”.2 Supra-nationality also means that it enjoys substantial enforcement capacity. ASEAN, on the other hand, was conceived quite differently from the EU. The Bangkok Declaration was neither a treaty nor a charter. It was more like a framework agreement urging the member states to cooperate, rather than imposing an obligation to do so. It did not envisage any delegation of authority to the regional organization. It was basically a mechanism to engage with one another — a basis, if you will, for cooperation rather than a structure of cooperation. Right from the beginning the association rested on the principles of consultation and consensus. No particular timetable was laid out at the outset for the achievement of any specific goal. ASEANʼs objectives were couched in very general terms necessitating a case by case, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence process of reaching a common agreement. This is the hallmark...