Regional Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia

3. The Political Dimension of Regionalism

3 The Political Dimension of Regionalism Regionalismʼs attraction stems from its potential to create an enabling environment for the conduct of amicable intraregional relations. Where it has functioned reasonably well it has reduced the security anxiety that is natural between squabbling neighbours or between the region and predatory extra-regional powers. The expectation is that if and when the regional states achieve a minimum level of order, their energies can be fruitfully expended in nationbuilding and developmental tasks. The distraction caused by a persistent feeling of insecurity is greatly reduced if there is a basic commitment among the members that conflicts will be managed in a non-threatening way, even if the regional organization is not specifically mandated to ensure this or is not preoccupied with this task. Security, order, predictability and peace are thus ensured by relying on diplomacy and recognized international principles with the conviction that over a period of time the characteristics of a regional “society of states”, as opposed to a “system of states”, will emerge. Hedley Bull who made these two phrases famous, in the context of the international political system, defined them in the following manner: A system of states (or international system) is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one 03 Political p113-204.indd 113 4/27/07 3:05:04 PM 114 Regional Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia anotherʼs decisions, to cause them to behave — at least in some measure — as parts of a whole … A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states [already forming a system], conscious of certain common interests and values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.1 Bull clarified what he meant by the rules of mutual relations and commitment to common institutions: states “should respect one anotherʼs claims to independence, they should honour agreements into which they enter, and that they should be subject to certain limitations in exercising force against one another”.2 In Bullʼs conceptualization, of the two, the society of states is more evolved than a system of states. A society of states suggests a conscious moulding and melding of common values. As Alan James elaborates, Where a group has such cooperative features, the term society is well employed to describe its general behavioural character, and is a better term than system. For it carries a much greater measure of warmth, and hence suggests more commonality, than the latter. “System” has a rather chilly, distant and mechanical resonance suggesting little more than the existence of a set of arrangements. The associational implications of “society”, on the other hand, speak almost of collegiality and intimacy.3 In other words, a system of states is more of an assortment where states are just thrown together and get 03 Political p113-204.indd 114 4/27/07 3:05:04 PM The Political Dimension of Regionalism 115 along as best as they can. In the context of regionalism such an assortment is merely a function of geographical proximity without a sense of bonding. Over time, a society of states has the potential to evolve as a peaceful community of states. The European Union has successfully traversed this path. ASEAN has edged very close to the society of states point on the scale and is now making a bid for a community although it is still a long way off. Insofar as the process and effect of regional cooperation is concerned, the distinction between South and Southeast Asian regional enterprises is somewhat similar to the distinction drawn by Hedley Bull between a “system of states” and “a society of sates” in the international realm. ASEAN (that is, the core members) is almost society-like, whereas SAARC retains all the sharp edges of a system of states despite two decades of organizational life. The difference between a system and society is more pertinent for the political and conflict mitigation planks of regionalism as reflected in adherence to norms, diplomatic rules, pursuit of common interests as opposed to obsessive self interest, and finally, shared values. These are more firmly established among the EU members, fairly consolidated among the original ASEAN members...