The ASEAN Summit and Indonesia’s national interests

Jusuf Wanandi, The Jakarta Post, JAKARTA | Thu, 03/19/2009 10:57 AM

The ASEAN Summit at Hua Hin, Thailand, two weeks ago had as its main theme: “The ASEAN Charter for ASEAN People”. It was argued that the Charter provides the legal and institutional framework for ASEAN to become a more rules-based, effective and people-centered organization realizing an ASEAN Community by 2015.

First and foremost is the idea of a people-centered organization. For over 40 years ASEAN was a government-oriented organization. It had been elitist and was always organized by and among bureaucracies. But the Charter has no article or explanation on how to involve or deal with the people and people’s organizations, although it aspires to become people-centered.

It seems that governments never have the real intention to involve the people in deciding on ASEAN’s development. ASEAN is supposedly for the people and not by the people but by governments, as went the Enlightenment philosophy and propaganda of 18th century kings.

The human rights body, which is the embodiment of a people-centered ASEAN, could not be finalized, because several member governments do not want a body that could scrutinize their abuses and apply sanctions. Without such power it will not have any meaning for the ASEAN peoples as represented by their civil societies. And it also will have no credibility to the international community.

With that background, it was understandable that the two representatives from Cambodia and Myanmar were not allowed by their respective leaders to meet the ASEAN leaders during the Summit. And the Secretariat had to suffer for the “mistake” of organizing something without the specific consent of those two leaders.

The Charter can never overcome the ideological and political divide that exists in ASEAN. That is the reason why, according to the Charter, everything should be agreed upon by consensus. This is a major constraint that will become a major obstacle for ASEAN to deepen its integration that would be necessary for the organization to meet future challenges.

If the necessary integration is not going to happen because ASEAN is still based on absolute sovereignty, with consensus as the way to make decisions, then ASEAN cannot become a real community, and it cannot have a leading role in institution-building in East Asia. More importantly, it cannot take the necessary decisions to face the immediate challenges of the severe financial and economic crisis we are now facing.

Rhetoric alone will not be adequate to overcome the new challenges. Deeds are needed, and they are not forthcoming. The chairman’s statement of the ASEAN Summit mentioned the importance of free trade, and yet three countries, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, have announced a “buy local” policy as a natural response to the crisis. It took six months for ASEAN to organize a Summit to discuss the crisis. Even then, except for the rhetoric, not much action has been taken.

The increase of the size and the multilateralization of the Chiang Mai Initiative were really an ASEAN + 3 effort that has been prepared for more than a year, but it is doubtful that it can help solve the current crisis.

The FTA with Australia and New Zealand has long been overdue, but it does not occupy an important part in ASEAN’s trade. The ASEAN single market as promised by the ASEAN Economic Community idea for 2015 has yet to be worked out diligently and consistently by ASEAN bureaucracies despite the unfolding crisis. ASEAN’s further credibility will depend on the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint.

In conclusion, it could be said that ASEAN is still important for good neighbor policies, and should be maintained by Indonesia. But Indonesia neither should nor could depend on ASEAN to face future challenges. For that it should look to other East Asian institutions, trans-Pacific as well as global ones. In the end, Indonesia should be able to pursue her own national interests through bilateral relations, regional institutions, such as the APT, EAS, ARF and APEC, as well as global ones, such as the G20 and the UN.

It may be necessary for the East Asian region to establish an overarching summit to deliberate on strategic issues, including traditional security issues, with the participation of the United States.

We have always been able to pursue our national interests through these different institutions before, and we should continue to strengthen them. The period of depending on ASEAN alone, which has been considered as the cornerstone of our foreign policy, should be over.

The writer is vice chair of the Board of Trustees, CSIS Foundation, Jakarta