By KHAIRY JAMALUDDIN
Asian Wall Street Journal
Since its founding, the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations has deftly balanced the interests of its members, anchored regional geopolitical stability, and launched moves toward a free trade area. Much of this success was due to the so-called "Asean way," a policy of noninterference in member states' internal affairs. Decisions were made by consensus, effectively giving every member a veto. Confrontation and, at times, even honesty, were considered serious diplomatic faux pas.
As useful as the "Asean way" was in managing regional ties during past eras of autocratic leadership and the early years of nation-building in member states, it is time for Asean to slaughter its most sacred cow. This week, the group's leadership will meet in Singapore to decide on a new Charter that has been drafted by a group of Asean's former statesmen. The Charter aims to recast Asean as a rules-based organization with enough teeth to enforce its rules on member states, especially those who have repeatedly hidden their bad behavior behind the grouping's international credibility.
At stake is nothing less than Asean's future. The "Asean way" has proved a double-edged sword. It has allowed for a top-level, generalized commonality of purpose in creating a peaceful and prosperous region. Not interfering with your neighbors creates a lot of goodwill. At the same time, the "Asean way" has also excused egregious human-rights abuses and hampered effective action in many key transborder issues, such as economic integration and environmental degradation.
Among other things, the Charter proposes a new decision-making process which will allow members to vote on some issues, thereby breaking the chokehold that consensus has on efficacy. It calls for a human-rights commission, a strengthened secretariat and a biannual "council meeting" of government leaders to speed decision-making beyond Asean's current once-a-year summit. Most significant is a proposal to give Asean the power to suspend members who violate agreements, or act in a manner which breaches the association's objectives.
If these recommendations are adopted, Asean's commitment to reform will immediately be tested by how it will deal with Myanmar's generals. Under the old "Asean way," Myanmar's 1997 admission into the grouping was defended by other members as a form of "constructive engagement" with Yangon. Asean believed inclusion would lead to moral suasion, and eventually, toward democracy and good governance. Trade and investment between Myanmar and fellow Asean countries benefited both sides. For the generals, Asean membership afforded the country an international platform, and took the edge off Myanmar's pariah status, forcing other countries to deal collectively with the grouping, even though they would not deal with Myanmar individually.
But the events of the past few weeks in Myanmar have reminded us in no uncertain terms of what was becoming increasingly obvious: Engagement and appeasement has not worked. Indeed, Asean had little choice but to censure Myanmar in the strongest possible way -- in itself, a very un-Asean thing to do. Myanmar represents the biggest embarrassment for Asean and with graphic images of the violent suppression of monks and activists beamed globally, there was no "Asean way" out this time around. Although Yangon has shown through its cozy relations with China that it is not entirely dependent on Asean, the grouping must demonstrate that it is willing to wield its new powers against those who refuse to play by the rules. The Charter must mean a very real threat of suspension from Asean if Myanmar refuses to restore democracy immediately in a manner acceptable to the majority of the Burmese people.
* * *
Asean's long-term relevance will also be determined by its ability to boost economic growth through greater integration. For decades, the original Asean members benefited from uncontested flows of foreign direct investment which fed an export boom that exponentially raised living standards and built impressive infrastructure. Today, the flows of capital are no longer uncontested. China and India have emerged as the Asian growth stories of this century. Even within Asean, the five founding members -- Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand -- can only watch as Vietnam replicates their earlier success.
Although plans for a free trade area have been accelerated, the reality of economic integration is not encouraging. Intraregional trade fell in the initial years of the Asean Free Trade Agreement, inked in 1992. Companies are discouraged from taking advantage of common preferential tariffs because of the red tape involved. Prices for the same goods vary significantly across the region.
Companies want to view Asean as a single production platform where flows of goods, services, workers and capital are open, smooth and predictable. Asean makes a big deal about its combined market size of more than half a billion people. It counters the rise of China with a "China plus one" sales pitch, with Asean being that "plus one." But its attractiveness as an investment destination with a sizable market only works if there is seamless economic integration. Although it may be far too premature to talk about an economic and monetary union in the model of the European Union, the creation of a customs union and later a common market must be a priority if Asean is going to make good on its promise of offering investors a single production platform.
* * *
The Charter's recommendations were, interestingly, put forward by former Asean leaders -- such as former Philippines President Fidel Ramos, former Indonesian Foreign Minster Ali Alatas, and former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam -- many of whom were practitioners of the "Asean way" during their time in office. Having once been part of the system, it is significant that they realize Asean must now change. Although a political union may be many years away, Asean has no choice but to accelerate its economic integration if it is to put up a good fight against the Chinas and Indias of today.
These goals can only be achieved if the institution tasked with looking after the region is strengthened and rules-based, and its members are rooted in common principles of democracy, justice and good governance. For too long, the "Asean way" has allowed one or two members to tarnish the entire grouping's credibility. For too long, the "Asean way" has been synonymous with a weak central institution, unable to enforce rules among its members and constantly lost in a labyrinth of intergovernmental bureaucracy.
The "Asean way" has reached a dead end. The days of the strongman who closed one eye to what was happening in his backyard are gone. The time for peddling Asian values as an excuse for not upholding basic standards of human rights and development has passed. Asean needs a new way to do things, and the time for change must be now.
Mr. Jamaluddin is deputy leader of the United Malays National Organization's youth movement and a director of Iron Cage, a private investment company based in Kuala Lumpur.
No comments:
Post a Comment