HISTORY OF ASEAN

HEDDY SHRI AHIMSA-PUTRA

UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA
YOGYAKARTA
INDONESIA
HISTORY :
- DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES IN THE PAST
- DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES IN THE PAST
- DESCRIPTION OF PHASES (OF PHENOMENA) IN THE PAST
- SEQUENTIAL DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS IN THE PAST

- CAUSAL DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS / PHENOMENA

- CAUSAL EXPLANATION OF EVENTS / PHENOMENA

ASSUMPTIONS :
EVERYTHING CHANGES / IS CHANGING
THE CHANGES ARE CAUSED BY SEVERAL FACTORS
THE FACTORS ARE : INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
THE PROCESSES OF CHANGE ARE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS
THE PROCESSES OF CHANGE CAN BE DIVIDED INTO PHASES
THE PHASES CAN BE ARRANGED SEQUENTIALLY
SOUTHEAST ASIA :
- A REGION WHERE VARIOUS SOCIETIES LIVE
- THERE ARE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
- THE SOCIETIES WERE INTEGRATED INTO NATION STATES
- THE NATION STATES WERE UNITED INTO “ASEAN”

QUESTIONS :

- WHAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTE TO THE FORMATION OF

“ASEAN”?

- HOW “ASEAN” HAVE SURVIVED AMIDST VARIOUS KINDS OF

“TROUBLES” AND EXTENDED ITS MEMBERSHIP?
SOUTHEAST ASIA : REGION AND TERM

The Chinese have long recognized the maritime cohesion of the

islands and coasts to their south - The whole region (Southeast
Asia) is called “Nanyang” [the lands of the] Southern Ocean -

From the Chinese perspective the region was seen as bound

together by the sea - Southeast Asia is, “a maritime extension of
the Asia heartland” - Southeast Asia may be defined as the area
south of China and east of India.

The region has only recently been called Southeast Asia by most
people. During World War II, the term is used as a collective
designation for the Japanese-occupied countries south of China.

Historically, the region had been viewed as “divided between

Sinicized Vietnam, the Hispanicized Philippines and “Farther
India”, that is the other lands of the region, which share a
common cultural indebtedness to India” (Williams, 1976: 3-5).
 PHYSICAL SETTING

(Source: Lea E. Williams, 1976. Southeast Asia: A History. NY: Oxford University Press, p.6)
5
HISTORY :

Southeast Asia emerged from its Neolithic prehistory about the

beginning of the Christian era.

Its history may be divided into four periods:

(1) the period of the Indianized states (up to about 1500 AD),
before the arrival of Europeans;
(2) the period (1500-1750) of early European trading ventures;
(3) the period (1750-1909) of European territorial conquests, and
(4) the overlapping period of nationalism (from 1896) (Wilson,
1973: 337-338)

“The history of the region has been largely interpreted in terms of

the importation and adaptation of ideas from India, China, the
Islamic world and the West” - However, “It has been… the power
of [the Southeast Asian cultures] to absorb without being
absorbed that has bound the various peoples together histori-
cally” (Williams, 1976: 24)
In 16th century the Portuguese dominated the seas. They esta-
blished control from bases at Malacca. However, in 17th century
they lost in competition with the better financed and organized
seamen: the Dutch, the British, and the French. For many years
these nations competed with one another in trade in Southeast
Asia

The cultural effect of the early centuries of European intrusion

was limited - but gradually, trading practices led ultimately to
political intervention (Wilson, 1973: 339).

THE EUROPEAN CONQUEST PERIOD :

During this period the interest of the European powers in South-

east Asia gradually was transformed from a largely commercial
concern to a largely political one
SOUTHEAST ASIA - 1920’S

(Source: Steinberg, J.D. 1971.

In Search of Southeast Asia: a
Modern History. Kuala Lum-
pur: Oxford Univesity Press,
p.195)

8
There was the disappearance of the principal instruments of
Dutch and British activities in the region: The Dutch East India
Company (dissolved in 1799), and the British East India Company
(went under in 1858). The governments of these two companies
took direct responsibility for overseeing the affairs of the areas
they have dominated.

The political map and many of the governmental institutions of

modern Southeast Asia were from this period of European impe-
rialism (Wilson, 1973: 340)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONALISM :

The first nationalist movement occurred in the Philippines, when

in 1896-1897 the people here rebelled unsuccessfully against the
Spanish (Wilson, 1973)
World War II had strengthened Southeast Asian nationalism and
made independence a reality.

The effect of the Japanese conquest of the European dependen-

cies in 1941-1942 and the subsequent collapse of the Japan in
1945 :
- destroyed the image of invincible European masters;
- brought about social disruption in Southeast Asia;
- provided opportunities for political activities by national leaders.

The course of events led to independence for Indonesia in 1945,

the Philippines in 1946, Burma in 1948, Vietnam, Laos and Cam-
bodia in 1954, Malaysia in 1957. In 1965 Singapore became a
separate independent state (Wilson, 1973)
 SOUTHEAST ASIA – 1970’S

(Source: Lea E. Williams, 1976. Southeast Asia: A History. NY: Oxford University Press, p.13)
11
THE REGIONAL CONTEXT :
The new nations in SEA suffered from political instability caused
by social divisions, poverty, inadequate administration, and the
difficulties of devising institutions to solve these problems

The division of Vietnam and the struggle between the north and
south involving the great powers and lesser states in the 1960’s
increased the significance of Southeast Asia in world affairs
(Wilson, 1973: 338-340)

GLOBAL CONTEXT :
In September 1954 SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) a
regional defense organization was created by the Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Treaty, signed by eight states:
Pakistan (withdrew in 1972), the Philippines, Thailand, Australia,
New Zealand, Britain, French, United States (Wilson, 1973)
The formation of SEATO was motivated by :
(a) the decline of colonial powers;
(b) the weakness of the new states in Southeast Asia;
(c) the rise of a powerful Communist China

The objective :
(a) to uphold principle of self-determination in Southeast Asia
(b) to provide the states of the region with the opportunity to
achieve stability;
(c) economic and cultural growth, free from outside interference
(Wilson, 1973: 341)

SEATO was handicapped by the nonparticipation of important

countries in the region, including India, Indonesia, Burma and
Malaysia with non-alignment foreign policies - these states have
been critical of SEATO. They said that it was dominated by the
Western powers, and that represented non-Asian interference in
Asian affairs (Wilson, 1973: 342)
In 1960 nations of Southeast Asia entered a new era in which they
tried to cooperate with one another

- ASA (Association of Southeast Asia) and Maphilindo were formed,

but failed

- ASA failed because of the conflict between Malaysia and the

Philippines over the territorial claim to Sabah

- Maphilindo failed because of President Sukarno’s confrontation

policy toward Malaysia (1963-1965)

Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore faced

certain difficult situations in common;

Realizing each other’s limitations and vulnerabilities, they were

motivated to pull their resources together to promote “economic
growth, social progress, cultural development, [and] peace and
stability in the region” (Poon-Kim, 1977: 753)
THE FORMATION OF ‘ASEAN’

ASEAN was founded in 1967 by: Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,

Singapore, Thailand

The crucial factors in the formation of ASEAN :

- The downfall of Sukarno after the PKI coup in 1965
- Suharto’s “New Order” in both domestic and foreign policy

The failure of ASA and Maphilindo showed that such an associa-

tion “could not succeed without Indonesia’s backing”
(Poon-Kim, 1977: 754)

The hope was : through regional cooperation ASEAN could

minimize the manipulation and the domination of the great powers.
THE PRIMARY GOALS OF ASEAN

(1) To promote and facilitate intraregional economic development

(2) To foster social and cultural progress
(3) To ensure peace and stability in the region

It turned out that the first goal can only be achieved only if the
third goal had been achieved - The second goal can only be
achieved after the first goal was achieved
THE FIRST DECADE :

Adam Malik [Indonesia’s Foreign Minister] stated:

“ASEAN can be seen as reflecting the growing political will of

the nations of this region to take charge of their own future, to
work out problems of their development, stability and security
together and to prevent their region from continuing to remain
the arena and the subject of major power rivalry and their
conflict” (Poon-Kim, 1977: 754)

Thus, ASEAN was also formed with the political and security
objective, that is to serve as a defense or protection against the
expansion of Chinese communism in the region

Regional security was important for ASEAN

(Poon-Kim, 1977: 754)
ASEAN Organizational Structure

Formerly ASEAN has a decentralized structure: each country has

its own National Secretariat, headed by a Secretary General who
has the responsibility of acting on behalf of his government by
coordinating activities related to ASEAN

The Foreign Ministers comprising the highest degree decision-

making authority

The next highest authority is the Standing Committee, consists of :

- the Foreign Minister of the host country as chairman,
- the resident ambassadors of the four other countries as members

- rotates on yearly basis.

It is in charge of ASEAN activities between the Ministerial Meetings

(Poon-Kim, 1977: 763)
The reason for a decentralized structure in the 1960s was :

- A sort of “fear of domination” by a centralized institution with

greater power, over one’s national sovereignty

The National Secretariats guaranteed equality among all mem-

ber states.

But, in 1970s ASEAN became more complex - Permanent Com-

mittees increased (from four to eleven) in 1976.

With the increasing number of recommendations and projects,

and the extension of the Association’s activities in the 1970,
decentralized organization could no longer handle such multiple
activities (Poon-Kim, 1977: 764).

Structural change was needed

In the 1972 Ministerial Meeting proposals for structural changes
were brought up for discussion

There was a need for :

- An overall review of the structure
- The establishment of a Central Secretariat

In 1973 the Foreign Ministers submitted recommendations - but

the establishment of the Central Secretariat was not approved until
the Bali Summit in February 1976

THE SECOND DECADE :

Central Secretariat was established permanently in Jakarta

There were some disagreements on its proper role

The Central Secretariat assumed mainly administrative and
coordinative functions (Poon-Kim, 1977: 764).
During ASEAN first four years, it was observed that “nothing of
substance was achieved, because much time and effort had to be
directed at tearing down the “psychological barriers”, i.e. distrust
among the member nations.

Due to the diverse backgrounds, it took time for the countries’

leaders to develop confidence and trust in one another through
personal contacts. The creation of mutual trust was necessary

In his assessment of ASEAN’s performances in 1972 :

Lee Kuan Yew considered the most valuable achievement of the

Association to be “the understanding and goodwill created at the
frequent meetings which helped to lubricate relationships which
could otherwise have generated friction”.

However, the importance and usefulness of ASEAN grew

In 1984, after its independence, Brunei joined ASEAN

In 1987, after two decades of its establishment, ASEAN was consi-

dered a success as a Third World regional organization

- ASEAN has actually developed in terms of its international status

and the commitments of its member states (Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei)

- ASEAN embodied a consensus among it members “as to the

preservation of the territorial status quo”

- ASEAN has provided the states of non-Communist Southeast

Asia with a basis for regional stability
(Buszynksi, 1987)
The benefits of the ASEAN for its member states :

- The international status of ASEAN as a regional organization has

enhanced the position of its member states diplomatically and
politically at both regional and state levels

- Relations among the member states have been more peaceful

and certain since ASEAN was created than before

Without an organization such as ASEAN these benefits would not

have been possible (Buszyinski, 1987:830)

The benefits and advantages that ASEAN provides its member

states beyond the confines of intra-ASEAN economic cooperation
are technically the benefits of regionalism
THE THIRD DECADE

After three decades of existence, ASEAN had significant

accomplishments :
- Peace and cooperatio among its members
- A sense of identity
- Outstanding economic performance of its members
(Denoon and Colbert, 1998)

It is also argued that a key political contribution of ASEAN to its

member states lies in “its values as a source of psychological
comfort and support” (Kurus, 1993: 824)

What are these psychological comforts?

(1) ASEAN has prevented a feeling of isolation among the states

that in turn could have encouraged competition among the great
powers in Southeast Asia
(2) ASEAN succeeded in “building the self-confidence of the
states to assert their position as subjects, rather than objects of
international politics and as full participants in regional and
global affairs”

This has been manifested through ASEAN’s “bloc politics”

approach in dealing with bigger and more powerful actors and
confronting common external challenges - This approach is vital
to a diverse group of states in a strategic and volatile region

(3) ASEAN has served as a forum for member states to coordi-

nate their external outlook

It has provided a multilateral foreign policy framework, with all its

checks and balances - within this the ASEAN states can arrive at
right positions, right actions, and right politics
(4) ASEAN had succeeded in making its members more aware
and sensitive to each other’s interests

ASEAN has gradually fostered a family feeling of togetherness

and shared interests among a group of states that had very little
in common to begin with” - At a deeper level, “ASEAN has
afforded the member states a vehicle to identify with the region” -
ASEAN has become “an identity”

(5) The ASEAN process has contributed “to the creation of a

strong sense of mutual understanding, predictability, trust, confi-
dence, and goodwill among the members”

This atmosphere has been fostered by the growing interaction

among officials of the states
(6) ASEAN has helped to minimize, if not resolve, the existing
intra-ASEAN conflicts

ASEAN has helped to prevent misunderstanding and conflict

(7) ASEAN helped to establish four fundamental ground rules for

peaceful co-existence within the region: (a) strict non-interfe-
rence in the internal affairs of fellow members; (b) pacific settle-
ment of disputes; (c) respect for each other’s independence; (d)
strict respect for the territorial integrity of fellow members

The establishment of these basic ground rules has contributed

to regional peace, security and prosperity

In 1995 Vietnam was admitted as ASEAN member

THE FOURTH DECADE :

In 1997 Laos and Myanmar joined. Laos was admitted to

observer status in 1992, while Myanmar in 1996
Evaluating ASEAN in its fourth decade of existence (August,
1997), it is said that at that time ASEAN state members were con-
fronted with a severe and unexpected economic crisis - these
brought new challenges to (a) ASEAN’s prestige; (b) the strength
of its members, (c) their ties with one another, (d) their capacity
for joint action

From the internal perspective ASEAN leaders credit ASEAN with

“contributing to national economic success by maintaining peace
among them and enabling them to concentrate their energy and
resources on economic development”

In December 1998 Cambodia was admitted as ASEAN member

It was granted observer status in 1994

In 1999 ASEAN membership was “completed” - It has today ten

Southeast Asian states as its members (what about Timor Leste?)
More economic activities should be performed by ASEAN :
(a) efforts to improve global market access
(b) cooperative approaches to international commodity issues
(c) cooperation in establishing region-wide industries (p.508)

With the expansion of its membership -to include ten Southeast

Asian states- ASEAN may face some new problems, such as:

(a) the intimacy that leaders valued could become lesser

(b) more difficult consensus, “arriving at a consensus among ten

states would certainly become more difficult than among six”

(c) inadequate human resource, “new members would be strained

to field adequate numbers of English-speaking, technically
qualified officials to participate in ASEAN’s many meetings”
(d) ideological differences - “continued Communist party domina-
tion could set the Indochinese states apart from their fellow
members”

(e) internal disputes, “a range of new disputes over borders, trade

and migrants would be added to the existing differences among
the old members”;

(f) economic disparities, “sharp disparities in economic develop-

ment would pose additional obstacles to achieve consensus on
economic policy” (Denoon and Colbert, 1999:509)

Nevertheless, as a regional organization ASEAN was a great

success
THANK YOU
It is argued that narrow nationalism was the stumbling block to the
growth of cooperation. The record showed that “no single state
had been willing to sacrifice its national interests for the sake of
regional cooperation”. - An illustration of this is the diversity in
perceptions and interpretations of regional security - as an exam-
ple was Malaysia’s perception of regional security, which was
different from the Singapore’s, the Indonesia’s, Thailand’s as well
as the Philippines.

Nationalism is can also be seen in trade and economic develop-

ment - nevertheless recent development was better

Significant new steps in the economic sphere have been taken, but
difficulties remain due to the important differences in the economic
development of the ASEAN countries - Further implementation of
regional cooperation depends upon the tangible advantages that
can be discerned for each country (Poon-Kim, 1977: 757)
The neutralization scheme was accepted as a common objective
in 1971 - Since then ASEAN has seemed to pay more attention to
economic than to political problems, although both have been on
the agenda.

Political concerns were mainly triggered by the changing of great

power relationships in East Asia and the deteriorating situation in
Indochina - “..the Indochina debacle had one positive result: it
gave a feeling of urgency which triggered a determination to pull
together and respond collectively to the threat posed by the
Communists”

It is said that The Bali Summit Meeting of February 1976, the

signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, the Declaration of
Concord, and the agreement on four ASEAN industrial projects,
“could not have been accomplished so soon had it not been for
the changes in Indochina” (Poon-Kim, 1977: 759)
Buszynski observed that in diplomatic arena ASEAN has func-
tioned ”as a vehicle to minimize the impact upon the region of
Vietnamese reunification”. ASEAN has also “provided a basis for
the management of relations with Vietnam”;

“ASEAN has acted to deny sanction to the Vietnamese occupation

of Kampuchea..”. Over the Kampuchea issue “ASEAN has
acquired a sense of diplomatic unity that has elevated its status
internationally..” (1987: 765)

Nevertheless, as ASEAN entering its third decade in 1988, its

leader needed to “reasses the organization’s role in the context of
a changing international environment”.
Buszynski argues that ASEAN needs to give greater attention to
regional economic problems and solve them, so as to elevate its
status among its members.

“An economic role could strengthen existing commitments to the

organization depending on its ability to meet perceived economic
needs” - For ASEAN an economic role could also have the politi-
cal function of boosting ASEAN’s institutional evolution (1987:
784-785)

A point to be considered: “the diplomatic and political benefits as

well as the economic-related benefits beyond the confines of
intra-ASEAN economic cooperation would not have been
possible without ASEAN

To understand ASEAN and its development and its success, the

focus does not have to be on ASEAN per se, but on regionalism,
which is what ASEAN represents and has engendered
(Buszynski, 1987)
Examining ASEAN’s performance until 1990, Kurus concludes in
1993 that :

ASEAN is seen by its six member states as (a) a means to obtain

benefits (tangible or otherwise) and (b) a source of benefits and
advantages.

The mutual and dependent nature of these benefits and advan-

tages - they are contingent upon both the existence of ASEAN
and membership in it.

These benefits are relatively “cost free” - they entail little or no

demand in terms of scarce resources, market sharing, and more
importantly, sacrifice national sovereignty. (p.820)
It is argued that :
understanding the benefits and advantages that ASEAN provides
its member states beyond the confines of economic cooperation
and how these have contributed to the maintenance of ASEAN will
provide some insights into the past, current, and possible future
directions of the regional organization (Kurus, 1993: 820)

It is said that “the internal political contributions of ASEAN to its

members are considered as the most important, surpassing any
benefit that the organization has provided on the diplomatic and
economic fronts” (p.824) - “.. a key political contribution of
ASEAN lies in its values as a source of psychological comfort and
support for the member states”.

What are these psychological comforts?

(2) ASEAN succeeded in “building the self-confidence of the
states to assert their position as subjects, rather than objects of
international politics and as full participants in regional and
global affairs”

This has been manifested through ASEAN’s “bloc politics”

approach in dealing with bigger and more powerful actors and
confronting common external challenges - This approach is vital
to a diverse group of states in a strategic and volatile region

(3) ASEAN has served as a forum for member states to coordi-

nate their external outlook - It has provided a multilateral foreign
policy framework, with all its checks and balances - within this
the ASEAN states can arrive at mature positions, choose mature
actions, and establish mature politics.
That can be seen, for instance, in :
- The results of its dealings with industrialized countries and
extraregional groupings such as EEC (which preferred to deal
with ASEAN on a group basis)

- The member states’ growing confidence in the Associations’

strength as a bargaining bloc (Poon-Kim, 1977: 763)

ASEAN was maintained for its utility as a diplomatic and political

tool - There is a strong indication that these states see the
continued existence of ASEAN as in their national self-interest
(Kurus, 1993: 819-820)
ASEAN was a “manifestation of the member states’ recognition of
their inability to solve their conflicts on a bilateral basis” - The
leaders tried to find solutions beyond their national boundaries

- The Association could “provide the indigenous machinery

whereby intraregional conflicts could be minimized if not settled”

- The Association could become a “convenient institution that

could minimize the feelings of insecurity and increase economic
bargaining power by providing strength through unity, especially
for the smaller ASEAN states” (Poon-Kim:, 1977: 754-755)

Old Malay adage : “Bersatu KitaTeguh, Bercerai Kita Runtuh”

(United We Stand, Divided We Fall)

ASEAN was thus a product of a combination of common fears

and weaknesses, not of common strength (Poon-Kim, 1977: 755)