Regional Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast Asia

Preface

Preface An unspoken but widely acknowledged view about regionalism suggests that it is better to have regionalized and faltered than never to have regionalized at all! Taking this as its point of departure, this study provides a comparative sketch of regional cooperation in South and Southeast Asia in the light of various political, economic and social developments in the two regions. Since regionalism is both a pervasive and amorphous phenomenon, a straightforward account of its similarities and differences cannot be easily set down. But the broad patterns of behaviour of the regional actors who gather under a regional roof can be captured. This study regards regionalism both as a formal entity and a process and seeks to explain the dynamics of regional cooperation from this intertwined perspective. Regionalism represents the wisdom of hanging together howsoever difficult that may be for states within a given geographical space. The different sides of their existence are played out within a regional context since their conflicts and confabulations are mostly with their immediate neighbours. Region is therefore both a threat and an opportunity. Increasingly, states are convinced that unless they relate well to their neighbourhood they are unlikely to make an impact in the wider world. There is also recognition that a regional platform can be extremely 00 Prelims pi-xii.indd 7 4/27/07 1:27:55 PM viii Preface useful in keeping at bay the undesirable elements of a rapidly globalizing world. But cognizance does not automatically ensure appropriate behaviour and therefore we find that some regional experiences have fallen far short of expectations. Although the vehicle has not been abandoned, it is not confidently striding ahead either. Such situations call for introspection and course correction. Learning from the experience of others can yield some benefits in this respect and therefore comparing notes may not be such a bad idea. To compare is not only understand but to improve and avoid the avoidable. In the following pages, an attempt has been made to highlight the highs and lows of regional experiences mainly in South and Southeast Asia interspersed with references to the European Union (EU) where relevant. Europe is not exactly used as a benchmark but only as a point of reference since it has had a long stint in making regionalism work. Some people may argue that the jury is still out on the success of the European venture, and EU should not be used as a yardstick because it is exceptional. While there may be good reasons for such thinking, it is also apparent that leaders and policymakers often refer to the advances made by the EU in the context of the gaps in their own regional efforts. To dismiss this as mere rhetoric, in my opinion, is inappropriate. Therefore, this work refers to the European experience where relevant. For Europe, regional cooperation was a creed; for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it was a strategy and for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), it is so far, neither. This study seeks to outline certain practical problems that hobble regional cooperative efforts. It is mainly 00 Prelims pi-xii.indd 8 4/27/07 1:27:55 PM Preface ix addressed to those who take a lively interest in regional cooperation. It starts with a broad survey of the objectives and course of regionalism so as to indicate its conceptual and practical evolution. It does not claim to provide a rigorous and direct comparative analysis of regionalism. Its main purpose is to appraise the readers of the relative progress made by regional organizations in South and Southeast Asia. It is more of an illustrative comparison rather than a comparative case study. My gratitude and thanks are owed to a great many people who made this study possible. Before mentioning their names I must state that the usual disclaimer applies. I take the responsibility for all the errors of omission and commission in the study. I should first of all thank the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore and its Director, Mr K. Kesavapany in particular, for the sponsorship of this project. Without Mr Kesavapanyʼs sustained interest, encouragement and cheerful confidence, this work would not have seen the light of day. I would also like to thank Dr Chin Kin Wah, Deputy Director, ISEAS, for his valuable comments when this research was presented in a seminar in ISEAS...