Source - The Nation Website (Eng)
May 04, 2006


Asean will celebrate its 40th anniversary next year. Throughout
these past four decades, one fundamental question has endured: has it done
enough to accomplish anything substantial?

Today, this question carries greater weight for several reasons.

First, the world has become increasingly globalised, with countries seeking
to augment their interests through the promotion of regionalism.

Second, as a result of this globalisation, the rise of China and
India is now reshaping the Asian geopolitical landscape and shifting the
regional balance of power.

And third, this new international environment comes with new
international realities, most notably the threat of terrorism.

Amid the regional and global changes, Asean has recently embarked
upon reinventing itself with the launching of new initiatives designed to
prove its viability. It has formulated a planned integration of all 10
members, drawn up the Asean Vision 2020, which outlines a number of
objectives towards regional development, organised last December's East Asia
Summit in Kuala Lumpur and drafted the Asean Charter, all as part of
strengthening its institutional structure.

All in all, Southeast Asia wishes to see an Asean community that
emphasises historical ties, a shared cultural heritage and the bonds of a
common regional identity. An Asean identity would provide a sense of
belonging among member states and hopefully encourage them to coordinate
their policies in regard to external powers.

But identity creation is a tricky business. Identity is an
amorphous concept, often brought into existence through comparison and
contrast. What Asean countries think of as their common identity is usually
exemplified by impressive intra-trade statistics and lots of annual
meetings.

The moulding of a regional identity is indeed more intricate than
simply compiling a record of Asean activities. An identity needs to reflect
a certain level of organisational achievement, common values and ethical
beliefs among members, a striving for international stature and, most
importantly, political commitment.

In an attempt to determine what best represents an Asean identity,
the Asia News Network (ANN) conducted a joint survey last year. Known as the
ANN AsiaPoll, the results showed that 60 per cent of those questioned felt
"people in Asean identified with one another".

Although the findings shed positive light on a rising awareness of
being "citizens of Asean", they told nothing about how such a regional
identity could actually be achieved. To outsiders, Asean remains trapped in
its old self-proclaimed identity, frequently associated with inward-looking
values like non-intervention, quiet diplomacy, veiled politics,
symbolism/ritual and rule by consensus.

Nowadays, even Asean's most conservative guardians have begun to
downplay the principle of non-intervention and understand the benefits of
regional integration in the face of a highly competitive world. Yet
stripping off Asean's old image and reasserting a new identity are equally
daunting challenges, ones that require willingness and determination on the
part of each member.

The most critical hurdle is the development gap among member
states, which has a powerful impact on the degree of regional engagement.

Less-developed Asean countries sometimes feel isolated, due to their own
deficiencies in resources and knowledge while attempting to catch up with
the rest of the grouping, particularly in areas of more sophisticated
cooperation like free-trade agreements or prevention of infectious diseases.

Some members have had very little experience with multilateral
cooperation after long years under colonial rule. And some have even
employed Asean as a shield against external pressure, in order to prolong
their brutal regimes.

During a seminar held last month in Singapore, Asean
Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong voiced his concern about the issue of Burma,
which has further separated Asean from the new global realities. The
lingering debate over how Asean should handle Burma - firmly or gently -
only confirms the elusiveness of an Asean identity-building process.

I had the privilege of asking Ong how he thought an Asean identity
could be brought about and what its characteristics might be. He replied
succinctly that the concept of Asean must be central to each member's
policies and in the hearts and minds of its leaders. In recent years,
though, no Asean member has even come close to achieving this essential
element, even though members consistently claim they hold tightly to Asean
principles.

Ong also mentioned that "being Asean" must be part of every
Southeast Asian's psyche. But because of Burma, Asean's significance
diminished quickly after that country gained admission nine years ago.

Other Asean members learned of the eviction of former Burmese
junta strongman General Khin Nyunt and the relocation of that country's
capital only through the news media. This has exemplified the extent to
which a regional identity as a whole can become tarnished from the actions
of a single member.

As at the national level, an identity can bring harmony,
confusion, perhaps even a degree of resentment, to different groups of
people within the region. Artificial though it can be in its making, an
identity can also prove forceful once it is fully formed. Therefore, our
regional identity must be built upon recognised universal values: human
rights, mutual prosperity and freedom from oppression.

Apart from placing Asean at the core of domestic and foreign
policy, other ingredients could include greater collaboration between Asean
governments and their respective citizens in defining a regional identity.

And since the expression of an identity is collective by nature, a greater
role for civil society is quintessential, as that would symbolise a regional
identity that is based on people power and not solely on state authority.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is an independent writer based in
Singapore.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com

< Back