The Evolution of ASEAN Cooperation, Identity-Formation, and Goals Towards Creating An ASEAN Community

1st National and International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences
October 31, 2014, KU Home, Bangkok, THAILAND
The Evolution of ASEAN Cooperation, Identity-Formation, and Goals

towards Creating an ASEAN Community
Martin Baier*
Abstract
As ASEAN moves closer to the 2015 deadline proposed in the ASEAN Community Roadmaps, the
question of what constitutes community in ASEAN becomes an important issue. This study uses
Constructivism, Institutionalism, and the process of Constitutive Localization to look at the existence and
evolution of collective identity among the organization's administrators, and how this affects cooperation.
By studying the documents that the organization produces, and other related discourse written about the
results, the changes in ASEAN's goals and nature can be seen. This shows the unique nature of ASEAN and
why the form of community and cooperation that has arisen in Southeast Asia may be the best fit for
such a diverse region.
Key Word: ASEAN Community, Cooperation, Constructivism, Constitutive Localization
Introduction
Almost fifty years ago, the foreign ministers of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the
Philippines met in Thailand to discuss plans for future regional cooperation. The outcome was the
Bangkok Declaration which laid the groundwork for the creation of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations. Despite previous failed attempts, the ministers saw the necessity of regional cooperation within
the socio-political environment of the time.
The forms of cooperation and reasons for it have changed over the years, but ASEAN has
continued to adapt itself and has survived to this day. This article is based on research done on how
community and cooperation have been conceptualized within the region, and how these have evolved
over the intervening years. It is primarily a descriptive study, with a focus on the administrative level of
ASEAN.
The importance of this paper rests on the unique system that ASEAN incorporates, why this
*
Masters Student, Master of Arts Program in International Relations, Thammasat University; Email:
bangkok.english@gmail.com

system may be necessary within the regional context, and how this may relate to other regional unions.
Looking to the past, Southeast Asia was a region of frequent conflict, and this was exacerbated by
colonial machinations over the preceding century. After decolonization, a mixture of excessive
nationalism, a general mistrust of neighbouring countries, and the threat of external intervention caused
conflict in the region, but also created the realization that changes were needed if Southeast Asian
countries wanted to avoid becoming embroiled in great power conflicts.
This caused the ministers to put aside their mistrust, and try to find some common ground in
order to protect them from external interference, and give their countries time to develop. (Khoman,
1992) Frequently in the literature (Nesadurai, 2008; Acharya, 2009; Severino, 2006), Southeast Asia is
described as being one of the most diverse regions in the world. Diversity in language, religion, cultural
history, political systems, and levels of development is evident throughout the region.
So, the possibility of peace and cooperation seemed slim at the time, but since then it has
become the greatest success of ASEAN. The organization is frequently critiqued by Western academics (L.
Jones, 2009; D.M. Jones, 2001; Khoo, 2004) who decry ASEAN's lack of strong rules and enforcement as
showing that ASEAN is either a fake or failed regional union. This is in part due to the comparison of
ASEAN to the EU, but it may be difficult to compare them for a multitude of reasons.
The origins of the EU rest in northwestern Europe, a region with deep historical connections.
Although there are differences in language and culture, there are also many cultural and religious
similarities across the region. This may have allowed for greater cohesiveness to be created, as agreement
was easier on topics which were similar, such as development level, economics, and governance. As well,
the stated goals of the EU are based on a shared concept of democracy and economic success. Thus, a
greater interconnectedness and interdependence has been possible.
Conversely, Southeast Asia's diversity was deep enough to create frequent conflict, as leaders
had very different concepts on statehood and goals. Earlier attempts at regionalism such as Maphilindo
and the ASA failed, as well as security agreements such as SEATO. Thus, any cooperation had to be
tempered by the restrictions of diversity, so the regional concept and goals had to be different as well.
From this, ASEAN's regional goal became peace, and the regional concept became based on what
shared beliefs existed at the time. Previous meetings between small states had shown that there were
some things they could all agree on. These were the concepts of non-interference, equality, and the
peaceful settlement of disputes. (Acharya, 2009) These became the basis for the ASEAN Way, which
although it is heavily criticized, may be the best fit for cooperation in a highly diverse region.
Therefore, this paper is also important when looking at the future of ASEAN. Strictly enforced
standardization and formality in policy and rule creation may not succeed fully in ASEAN due to the
regional context. Although progress in the region has been slow and incremental, it has succeeded in
solving some problems facing the region, while being fluid enough for the member states to retain their
diversity.
This study focused on the administrative level of ASEAN, and the objectives were to see if any
[33]

form of community has existed throughout ASEAN's history, how it has evolved, and how it affects and is
affected by cooperation. The article will begin by looking at the unique cultural and historical context of
the region, as well as previous analysis. Then, the operationalization will be outlined, as well as the
findings. Lastly, the implications of the study will be discussed and the possibilities for further study.
Historical Context
Before looking at previous research on ASEAN cooperation and community, it may be
enlightening to see the historical context of the region. Throughout Southeast Asia's history, there have
been multiple conflicts and conquests. Borders were generally nonexistent or very fluid, dependent on
the power and abilities of the leaders in those areas. As Western interest in the region increased, so did
their intervention into local politics and conflicts. By the end of the 19th century, many Western
European countries were assuming control of Southeast Asian kingdoms and sultanates. Colonialism
ranged across the region, and even kingdoms that were able to avoid it such as Thailand, had to change
how they defined their territorial sovereignty. Where before the conflicts were between warring kingdoms
and sultanates, the origins of the conflicts became European politics, and which colonial powers held
which territorial areas. Borders were formalized through western diplomatic law, and colonial states
emerged. (Tarling, 1993) During and after the decolonization after World War II, historic rivalries and hatred
occasionally rose again, while leaders of the new states tried to secure their domestic power through the
use of nationalism, which increased tensions between Southeast Asian states.
As well, the Cold War increased the external threats to the region, with the two great powers of
the United States and the Soviet Union staging proxy wars in small countries throughout Africa and Asia.
From this, the realization that smaller states could not trust great powers to protect them without
absorbing or using them gave rise to an interest in joining together to resist domestic interference from
these great powers.
The best example of this was the conference at Bandung in 1955. Twenty-nine countries
participated and found that they agreed on a few ideas which would improve their ability to develop
domestically rather than relying on great powers, and the threat of intervention and conflict which that
represented. They developed "The Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation" (MFA
Indonesia, 1955) which included the following principles:
1) Respect for the sovereign and territorial integrity of all nations
2) Recognition of the equality of all independent and sovereign nations
3) Abstention of interference in the domestic affairs of one state from another
4) Nonaggression against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state
5) The right of self defence, in either the single or collective sense
6) The right of the self-determination of all and a rejection of colonization
7) The peaceful settlement of all international disputes by negotiation, mediation, and arbitration
[34]

This conference formalized the fears that these small states had, and their solidarity in the
beliefs of nonalignment and equality. Although the results were only declaratory, this may have been the
impetus for many of the cooperative groupings which followed.
Attempts were made across a larger area with the ASA, but a lack of interest caused it to fade
quite quickly. A smaller regional grouping was attempted in Maphilindo, but tensions due to Indonesia's
Konfrontasi policy towards Malaysia caused it to fail. The US attempted to create SEATO as a regional
collective defence organization to block communist encroachment in Southeast Asia, but this was a
failure due to many Southeast Asian states' mistrust or disillusionment with the great power conflict of
the Cold War. (Acharya, 2009) So, in August of 1967, the five original foreign ministers decided to meet
and try to create an alternative to what had come before. Thus ASEAN was born.
Literature Review
Much of the previous analysis of ASEAN has been critical of the informality and "soft" nature of
ASEAN policy. This soft regionalism and informality has been criticized as merely being a "talk shop" and
ineffective from a Western perspective. (Katsumata, 2006) Structural aspects of the European Union,
especially its laws and collective intervention within its member states has traditionally been cited as the
form that other regions must adopt. This opinion may be too narrow as Tamaki refers to the fact that the
critiques tend to focus on what ASEAN is not, rather than what it is. (Tamaki, 2006)
Examples of these critiques are seen in the writings of Leifer (1973), Emmers (2003), and Khoo.
Khoo states that the norms of ASEAN are weak and often ignored as can be seen in the routine violations
of them within the region. (Khoo, 2004) Ba retorts that these violations were largely committed by states
that had not yet joined, and more importantly, were the exception rather than the norm. (Ba, 2005) This
is an important distinction to make as it is easier to see where rules are broken rather than where they
are adhered to.
This opinion may have come from a belief in cultural universalism, where there are universal
standards that must be adhered to, regardless of historical or cultural context. (Donnelly, 2007) This may
be the basis of the misunderstanding of what ASEAN is, and why it exists. As was previously discussed, the
differences in concepts of governance which have been formed by history, religion, and culture may
preclude involvement in any organization that would force its members to act against this context, as was
seen in previous regional attempts. Thus, most of the states in Southeast Asia would never have joined a
stricter organization unless coerced by a greater power. (Acharya, 2009) Such attempts were proven not
to work as was seen in SEATO.
Consequently, ASEAN primarily exists to promote peace and understanding within the region, so
that each state can develop on its own, or with partners in the region. Even limited cooperation rarely
happened between the member states before ASEAN, so the restrictions and confidence building
measures are understandable. As well, ASEAN provided a means for small countries to join together to
[35]

reject great power intervention, which was happening in Indochina at ASEAN's inception. So, lofty ideals of
democracy were put aside in favour of creating a region that would focus on stability, infrastructure, and
economy before ideological concerns. This does not mean that universal concepts have no place in the
region. Rather, a foundation of trust and development must be achieved first, and then more esoteric
goals may be reached. Similar processes happened in Western history, so some level of understanding
should be permitted.
This slow, incremental development can be seen from the documents and articles surrounding
ASEAN. The organization would not have lasted almost fifty years if it was not able to adapt itself to
regional and international changes. These changes can also be seen within member states, and may even
be identified as improvements by Western critics. ASEAN may even be seen as assisting in the gradual
acceptance of some of its members by Western countries, which has been evident in their economic
development as they became more attractive to Western interests. Thus, the evolution of ASEAN is an
important example of cooperation and community in a diverse region, as seen by the member states'
collective policy, actions, and norm creation.
Methodology
This study very obviously bases much of its analysis in Constructivism. Constructivism is
interested in what socially constructs individuals and groups. The basis of constructivist understanding of
community is focused on how interaction provides a complex set of influences on actors, which
promotes the idea of working together and sharing and inter-subjective knowledge that forms norms,
behaviours, and policy.
The major theoretical proposition of constructivism as defined by Mingst is that state behaviour is
shaped by elite beliefs, identities, and social norms, so they change the culture through their ideas and
practices. Therefore, national interests are the result of their social identities, and the object of study
should be the norms and practices of individuals and the society. (Mingst, 2003)
From this, one can see the shared beliefs and goals within the organization by looking at the
documents created by ASEAN. This is important because scholars such as Hall and Taylor show the role
that rules, informal practices, and institutional embeddedness play on the identity of actors, and their
decisions in the process used to create policy. Path dependency is one of the main limits on rational
actors, in that new decisions are based on what decisions were made in the past. Therefore, variables
such as exit costs and the ideational effect of past policy influences actors, and forms or adapts their
identities within the group. (Hall & Taylor, 1996)
Thus, if structure is defined as the rules, policies, norms, and practices of a group, this may affect
the actor's actions, decisions, and interactions. In this way, institutionalism can be used with
constructivism to show the importance of these institutions and the actors who both form them, and are
formed by them.
[36]

Rather than removing old normative regimes and replacing them with new ones, it is easier to
assess current norms in the regime and localize new norms to fit the existing context. This allays
domestic worries about the loss of tradition and heritage, which are both very important variables when
analyzing the South East Asian context. It keeps the existing cognitive priors, while evolving them to suit
new situations, thus the "constitutive" aspect. Hence, Acharya's constitutive localization is a dynamic
process of change. The trajectory is described as having four steps which are indifference or resistance,
local initiative and pre-localization, localization, and institutionalization and amplification. Acharya uses
this trajectory to explain why some norms are accepted while others are rejected, using the example of
accepting ASEAN while rejecting SEATO. (Acharya, 2009)
So, a loose outline of a cycle of cooperation and collective identity can be created. It would
begin with a pre-existing set of cognitive priors which would bring the members together so that they can
act collectively upon an idea or goal. Then, the success of the action prompts institutionalization through
policy development and the statement of goals. Next, this institutionalization reinforces the norms, goals,
and actions of the group, thereby strengthening the regional identity of the members. This identity may
then compel them to act collectively again. This is presented as a loose outline because the first and
second stages may switch places depending on the context of the situation, but the out come is the
same.
Indicators
An interesting outline of how to operationalize identity and community exists in the study by
Kaina and Karolewski entitled "EU Governance and European Identity". (Kaina & Karolewski, 2009) In their
chapter on operationalization, they outline the history of collective identity and community studies, and
clearly outline the structure by which one may find indicators of identity and community. Although the
study is focused on the EU, many of the ideas are useful to any study on collective identity and
community within a regional organization.
The basis of their operationalizations on collective identity can be simplified by asking the
question, "Who identifies with what, and why?" Therefore, the three main components of collective
identity are the subject, object, and the reason for identifying with the group. Following this, the subjects
of this study are the elites who make up the administrative level of ASEAN. The object is the ASEAN
community identity, which is based on the collective identity of the subjects. The reason the identity
exists, and is seen as important by the subjects, revolves around concepts of peace, prosperity, and
security from perceived external economic, political, or security threats.
Kaina and Karolewski see seven aspects of collective identity, which have been collected from
across the literature. In their study, they use these to look at the movement from "belonging to" a group,
to "belonging together" in a group. They see the second form as being the stronger bond of collective
identity, but as identity is dynamic, this could be seen as part of a process, where different actors may
have different levels of connection to the collective identity. Thus even "belonging to" is still a valid, if
[37]

thin, form of collective identity.
Seven aspects of collective identity can be organized into Melucci's three categories of collective
identity as follows (Melucci, 1995):
Boundaries: precious commonalities, human interaction, belief in a common fate, the
maintenance/enhancement of self-esteem
Consciousness: solidarity
Negotiation: mutual commitment, personal sacrifice
From these aspects we can see what indicators we are looking for in the documents related to
ASEAN, and how they relate to collective identity and community. (Kaina & Karolewski, 2009)
The tools for analyzing the discourse come from Schneider's well explained set of critical
discourse analysis tools. They have been collected from the research done by academics such as Chilton
(2004), and Fairclough (1995). Schneider states that there are two things that are essential to
understanding discourse, and these are the context of the discourse, and the relationships that can be
seen within it. (Schneider, 2013)
Consequently, this study used eight tools to deconstruct the context and relationships in the
discourse. These are organized as a process which begins with establishing context, the production
process, the preparation of materials and coding, textual structure, discourse fragments, cultural
references, linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms, and interpretation.
These tools are used in an analysis of both the diplomatic documents created by ASEAN, as well as the
articles and speeches given that surround these documents, either as support, analysis, or criticism.
Findings
This section will first outline the ASEAN documents which are central to the discourse created by
ASEAN about itself. Then, an assessment of the community evolution based upon other articles and
assessments will be given.
ASEAN Documents
Using ASEAN documents as a base of analysis, ASEAN community evolution can be divided into
five eras.
1967-1976 - In these first years of ASEAN, the focus is on confidence building and a statement of
the purposes and goals of ASEAN. The Bangkok Declaration (1967) and The Zone of Peace, Freedom and
Neutrality Declaration (1971) are merely declarative, and are a way for the original members to outline
their shared beliefs, and their solidarity in resisting external influence.
1976-1992 - This era begins with the first ASEAN summit and its two defining documents. The
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976) is the first ASEAN treaty, and it formalizes what had previously
been declared. It does not explicitly explain how it will achieve its goals, but it provides a code of
[38]

conduct to be used as a foundation from the values expressed earlier.
The ASEAN Concord (1976) extends the values of national resilience to the regional level, and
gives the first outlines of how the process of ASEAN community should be implemented. Rather than
relating itself to specific issues or actions, the Concord gives general outlines for how ASEAN interactions
will happen. The frequency of meetings and other interactions are stated generally, and the first
categorizations of issues are listed as political, economic, social, cultural, security, and structural. This
summit and the documents that resulted from it may have come from worries about the withdrawal of
the US from Vietnam, and the communist takeover of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Perceived
communist successes may have provided the impetus for ASEAN to formalize its solidarity, and progress
as a united group in the face of encroaching communism.
The Agreement on ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangements (1977) sees the first outline of what
instruments and policies must be created for ASEAN economic cooperation. This is important because this
is the beginning of the movement away from political and security concerns, towards the economic
concerns which dominated the next era in ASEAN.
1992-1995 - This era saw many changes to ASEAN, due to the major changes in international
relations. The Cold War had ended, and national governments were trying to figure out what their new
focus should be. The global economy and globalization became the new focus, and ASEAN's goals
adapted to reflect this.
The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (1992) was signed at the fourth ASEAN summit. It revised the
original CEPT agreement and gave an actual schedule of tariff reductions in the region. This is significant
because the agreement no longer gave general goals, but instead made specific arrangements to be
completed by certain dates. Even if these dates were not always followed, the trust that had developed
to collectively decide on this had obviously increased.
As well, this was the era that saw the beginning of ASEAN expansion. The CLMV countries began joining
with Vietnam in 1995. This in part showed the Western world how Vietnam had changed from being the
enemy in one of the United States' most embarrassing wars, to a country that was willing to change so
that it could become an active member in the global community. Related to this, The ASEAN Declaration
on the South China Sea (1992) formalized Southeast Asia's discomfort with China's attempts to control
areas which it had no claim to in international maritime law.
1995-2007 - At the fifth ASEAN summit, another important treaty was signed. The Treaty on the
Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (1995) built on the foundations created by ZOPFAN in an era
of demilitarization. The legitimacy of the region was fostered by global movements to demilitarize after
the Cold War. ASEAN joined other regions and countries in becoming a nuclear free zone, which was easy
to do since none of the members had nuclear capabilities. However, this was an important summit as
well because it was the first time that the heads of government of all ten Southeast Asian states
convened in one place despite three of them not being ASEAN members. This treaty also improved the
safety of the region by putting pressure on neighbours to reduce or remove their nuclear arsenals.
[39]

The second ASEAN Concord (2003) built on the first Concord. The plans for an ASEAN Community
were categorized into the now familiar political/security, economic, and socio-cultural pillars. It separated
itself from the ASEAN Regional Forum in that it only involved ASEAN members, and how they would
promote community across the three pillars. This is the first framework which gave a specific date as a
goal for multilateral cooperation. The ASEAN Vision 2020 (1997) was the original community goal, but this
was changed in 2007 when a declaration was created to accelerate the community goals to 2015.
2007-2014 - The final era studied begins with one of the most important ASEAN documents. The
ASEAN Charter (2007) was signed at the 13th summit. One of the largest and most involved ASEAN
documents to that date, it further formalized ASEAN's purposes and goals. It gave a legal character to the
organization, and was seen as a major step towards evolving ASEAN into a regional organization that
would truly unite its member countries. The bureaucratic size of ASEAN had grown extensively since the
first era, and thus the document also categorizes all of the related groups. Although it was not
implemented in the charter, there was a great deal of discussion about firming up the dispute settlement
mechanisms, and removing the principle of noninterference from ASEAN. The discussions were not
implemented, but this further shows an interest in moving ASEAN towards a legally-enforceable model of
interaction and interdependence.
A further step towards a rule-based organization was The Declaration on the Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights (2009). This began some of the discussion related to the accession of
international norms on human rights. Once again, it was merely declarative, but still a step forwards.
This current era has also been focused on the near future, with the creation of the ASEAN
Community Blueprints/Roadmaps (2008, 2009). They have formalized the schedule for planned
cooperation across the three pillars, with a final deadline listed as 2015. Although these are proof of a
great deal of change within the region, there is much discussion of whether the goals are actually possible
within a given time-frame.
Community/Cooperation Assessment
In assessing these ASEAN documents, it may be useful to first look at what could be considered
the basis of ASEAN's collective identity. The norms of behaviour that are encompassed in the ASEAN Way
are based on an interest in creating a peaceful and stable region, where member states have enough
confidence in each other to pursue domestic development with each other or collectively as they wish.
This has been based on principles of nonintervention, peace and confidence building, and an egalitarian
decision-making process based on consensus. The first era of ASEAN relied on these principles the most.
The members were mainly looking to stabilize their domestic situations and allay external power's worries
or interest in interfering with a perceived weak state. Although there were not many action-based
decisions made in this era, the member countries tried to improve their knowledge and confidence in
each other by scheduling regular meetings and exchanging military intelligence. This improved the
environment between the original five members enough to work as a foundation for what was to come.
[40]

(Acharya, 2009)
The second era was characterized by increased solidarity between the members as they faced
the external threat of the third Indochina war. Intelligence exchanges increased, especially in relation to
border insurgencies. The conflict in Cambodia propelled ASEAN collective will in the form of pledges of
military support for Thailand in case of attack, and collective action in the ASEAN-sponsored resolutions
at the UN which led to the Jakarta Informal Meetings and eventually the cessation of aggression from the
Paris Conference in 1991. (Shee, 1977)
The third era saw a change in direction in ASEAN. Although ASEAN had portrayed itself as an
organization that wanted to focus on economic cooperation, it was unable to do this for its first 20 years.
Once the Cold War ended, global politics put a greater emphasis on economics, and thus the beginnings
of ASEAN expansion began. Brunei had already joined in 1984, but the first Indochinese country to join
was Vietnam. This was due to both Vietnam's decision to change its level of engagement in the region,
and ASEAN's change in focus to economic cooperation without as much political scrutiny. The lowering of
tensions made ASEAN membership more attractive as Vietnam searched for global legitimacy. (Tung,
2007)
The fourth era included Laos and Myanmar (1997), and finally Cambodia (1998) in the
organization, so that ASEAN finally included all 10 Southeast Asian states. The focus on economics
continued, in that the ASEAN GDP grew at an average annual rate of 7% between 1970-1995. (Lwin, 2001)
At that point, ASEAN had become the fourth largest trading entity in the world. Internally, the effects of
CEPT for AFTA were being seen. By 1997, the ASEAN 6 had reduced tariffs on 93% of overall tariff lines.
(Lwin, 2001) Although external trade was always primary, the increased level of economic development
within ASEAN shows that cooperation in promoting stability and peace in the region can go far in assisting
economic development.
Although the economic crisis also happened in this era, experiencing and recovering from it as a
region proved to be a test of ASEAN resilience. Many felt that the economic problems would cause
severe enough disputes between the members to tear ASEAN apart, but once again, it survived.
This last era has seen yet another change in ASEAN, but it is one which may move ASEAN away
from the principles that have held it together for so long. With the legal personality of the ASEAN Charter,
and the push for stronger regulations and enforcement of the ASEAN Community Blueprints, the
principles behind the ASEAN Way may be discarded. Many people are unsure whether ASEAN could
survive this, but it could also be the moment where ASEAN becomes strongly united as a region.
Throughout the history of ASEAN, the changing global and regional environment caused many
changes to the goals and nature of the organization. Within the region, community and cooperation thus
increased over time with the continued formalization and institutionalization of the norms that allowed
for almost 50 years of relative peace and stability. Specific instances of cooperation increased both
bilaterally and collectively, as the trust in each other increased along with the sense that belonging to
ASEAN gave them freedom to pursue their own development. There may not have been the close
[41]

collective action seen in the EU, with strong regulation and enforcement, but a thin community that
works slowly towards increased interdependence is still within the definition of community.
Implications
Is what currently exists in ASEAN a form of community? Has ASEAN created enough
interdependence that it can move away from the principles of the ASEAN Way? Will ASEAN only become
a true community by following the level of regulation and enforcement of a region like the EU?
This study has shown that the answer to the first question is yes. If community is defined by the
list of indicators outlined by Kaina and Karolewski, ASEAN definitely has precious commonalities that are
based on the ASEAN Way, but have expanded in the principles and policies that the members adhere to.
The belief in a common fate may be the main reason that ASEAN still exists. If the member states didn't
see any benefits to their national interests, or if any policy was more offensive than the exit costs, ASEAN
would have fallen apart. However, the member states have seen enough political and economic benefits
to keep them interested in continued membership.
The aspects of human interaction, maintenance or enhancement of self-esteem, and solidarity
were especially clear in the beginning of ASEAN. Human interaction built the confidence to continue
increasing the levels of interdependence, and the self-esteem of the state is based on legitimacy both in
and outside of the state. Membership has promoted legitimacy externally through economic interest from
foreign states and internally through domestic stability.
Solidarity may have been one of the elements that formed ASEAN, in that they had to show a
united front to defend from external great power interference. Lastly, mutual commitment and especially
personal sacrifice are the weakest elements, but these may be the elements that propel actors from a
sense of "belonging to" a group to "belonging with" their fellow group members. This may be the next
step that will culminate in 2015. So, the collective identity and collective action that define a community
already exists, but it may be a "thin" form of community right now.
This is the crux of the second and third questions. Will ASEAN become a stronger community if it
discards the ASEAN Way, or will that destroy what has already been created? Although there is no way to
know, forcing compliance to the elements of the ASEAN community goals may create enough tension to
push members beyond the exit costs and dissolve ASEAN if regulations are enforced. What seems to be
the more likely result is a fluid "re-imagining" of the community goals, or a delay towards the original 2020
date. In this way, the slow and incremental development of a deeper community may be allowed to
evolve, which may still be the better choice for ASEAN. In this author's opinion, the focus of the region
should be the development of infrastructure and economic development in the less developed member
countries. This would go far in removing much of the current friction that ASEAN is experiencing.
Therefore, further study on development may be the next step in plotting a course for ASEAN
community formation. As well, how ASEAN will deal with the 2015 deadline will be an interesting topic to
[42]

research, as the situation will either be one of continuing the current trajectory through delay or
amendment, or a radical shift in the nature of the organization. Either way, ASEAN has done well in
stabilizing South East Asia, and this has definitely been to the benefit of its members. This cooperation in
stability and peace may be the cornerstone upon which Southeast Asian development has occurred.
Whether it is enough to allow for further development remains to be seen.
References
Acharya, A. 2009. Whose Ideas Matter?: Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Cornell University
Press.
ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. 2008.
ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. 2009.
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint. 2009.
Ba, A. 2005. On Norms, Rule Breaking, and Security Communities: a Constructivist Response.
International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 5 (2): 255-266.
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Declaration on the South China Sea. 1992.
Donnelly, J. 2007. The Relative Universality of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 29 (2): 281-306.
Emmers, R. 2003. Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. 2004. Critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Hall, P. & Taylor, R. 1996. Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political studies 44 (5):
936-957.
Jones, D. & Smith, M. 2003. ASEANs Imitation Community. Orbis 46 (1): 93-109.
Jones, L. 2010. ASEAN's Unchanged Melody? The Theory and Practice Of Non-Interferencein Southeast
Asia. The Pacific Review 23 (4): 479-502.
Kaina, V. & Karolewski, I. 2009. EU governance and European identity.
Katsumata, H. 2006. Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum: Constructing a Talking Shop or a
Norm Brewery?. The Pacific Review 19 (2): 181-198.
Khoman, T. 1992. ASEAN Conception and Evolution. The ASEAN Reader xvii-xxii.
Khoo, N. 2004. Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community: A Review Essay. International Relations
of the Asia-Pacific 4 (1): 35-46.
Leifer, M. 1973. The ASEAN States: No Common Outlook. International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944), 600-607.
Lwin, M. 2001. The Achievements and Outlook of ASEAN Free Trade Area: An Overview.
Melucci, A. 1995. The Process Of Collective Identity. Social movements and culture 4: 41-63.
Mingst, K. 2003. Essentials of International Relations. Norton.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Indonesia (ed.). 1955. The Final Communique of the Asian-African
[43]

Conference of Bandung. in Asia-Africa Speaks From Bandung. Jakarta: Foreign Ministry. 161-169.
Nesadurai, H. 2008. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). New Political Economy 13 (2):
225-239.
Schneider, F. 2013. How to do a Discourse Analysis. Politics East Asia. Retrieved from
www.politicseastasia.com/studying/how-to-do-a-discourse-analysis/.
Severino, R. 2006. Southeast Asia in search of an ASEAN community: Insights from the former ASEAN
secretary-general. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Shee, P. 1977. A Decade of ASEAN, 1967-1977. Asian Survey 17 (8): 753-770.
Tarling, N. (ed.). 1993. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia (V ols 1-2). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tamaki, T. 2006. Making Sense of ASEAN Way: A Constructivist Approach. In Annual Conference of the
International Political Science Association.
The Agreement on ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangements. 1977.
The ASEAN (Bangkok) Declaration. 1967.
The ASEAN Charter. 2007.
The ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. 1992.
The Declaration on the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. 2009.
The Treaty on the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. 1995.
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. 1976.
Tung, N. 2007. Vietnam's Membership of ASEAN: A Constructivist Interpretation. Contemporary
Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 29 (3): 483-505.
Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration. 1971.
[44]

The Evolution of ASEAN Cooperation, Identity-Formation, and Goals Towards Creating An ASEAN Community

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Evolution of ASEAN Cooperation, Identity-Formation, and Goals Towards Creating An ASEAN Community

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1st National and International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences

October 31, 2014, KU Home, Bangkok, THAILAND