 |
Ambassadors to the Netherlands of Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Indonesia and Thailand attended ICAD 2016
|
On 3 September 2016, I was one of the speakers at the
International Conference on ASEAN Development (ICAD) at Leiden University. Goal of the 2016 edition of ICAD was, as stated by its organizers PPI Belanda
(Indonesian Student Association in The Netherlands), “to build a bridge between the EU and ASEAN and to learn from the EU in
the fields of Law, Politics, Economics, Culture and Technology for a deeper
integration and development of ASEAN”.
Although my speech focused on economic parallels between the EU and ASEAN, whereby economic integration in the fields of trade and investment and economic disparity of its member states were highlighted, it struck me that my fellow speakers as well as the audience at the Conference were quite sceptical on the (future) achievements of ASEAN. They did not have much confidence in ASEAN gradually assuming a leading, both political and economic, role in the region and beyond. The Conference’s audience was made up of approximately 120 Indonesian students, pursuing Bachelor-, Master-, and PhD-degrees in The Netherlands and other EU countries, representing the around 1500 Indonesian higher education students in The Netherlands and over 5000 in Europe.
Recent surveys held in Indonesia and neighbouring countries show that the “awareness” of ASEAN is increasing. In addition to large multinational companies, now also SMEs and individual entrepreneurs are seriously eyeing cross-border opportunities . However, apparently, there is still quite a large number of young people in the region that are hesitant when it comes to truely believing in the concept of ASEAN. The Indonesian students who attended ICAD 2016 pointed out the economic disparity between ASEAN member states and the unwillingness, or incapability, of showing leadership and decisiveness.
I am far most optimistic than some of these Indonesian students and strongly believe that ASEAN will in due course develop into a powerful union. But ASEAN will have to do it the Asian way, looking at the EU for some guidance, in particular from an institutional perspective. Jakarta could become a kind of Brussels, but nevertheless assume its own definition of a central role. Where the EU is struggling to keep its member states on board and is having a hard time enforcing agreements on them, politically as well as economically, ASEAN will work out its own way of dealing with geo-politcal and geo-economic issues. This may be regarded as being indecisive, but quick decisions and agreements without true support lack credibility. The monetary crisis, the refugee crisis, the Brexit, are all examples how NOT to deal with political, economic and humanitarian issues.
As I said earlier, from an institutional perspective and as far as intra-union trade is concerned, the EU is a good example. ASEAN can definately learn from the EU how to better “organize” its institutions and how to boost intra-ASEAN trade and investment. But as far as aligning individual member states on common (?) political and economic (monetary) challenges, ASEAN should create its own framework, whereby initial disparity between member states may not necessarliy be an obstacle. However, its geo-political and geo-economic balancing act is even more delicate than Europe’s. ASEAN is embarking on a cautious and careful course whereby a non-confrontational approach will prove to be far more effective than going head-to-head on matters of national interest or on geo-political sensitivities.
Will this road be a mere “walk in the park”? Definately not, ASEAN will stumble every now and then, face set-backs occasionally. It is a complex journey. As in Europe, ultra-nationalism and populism are also on the rise in Southeast Asia. National governments will have to explain policies in a convincing way in order to avoid xenophobia coming along with migration. There is bilateral friction between member states. Philippine newspaper, The Inquier, as well as the Japan Times, this week expressed their concern on the political indecisiveness of ASEAN. Both articles referred to the ASEAN meeting in Vientiane, Laos, last week, where ASEAN failed to take a firm stance against China’s interference in the South China Sea. The articles questioned China’s commitment to ASEAN’s Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and the international ruling of the arbitral court of the UN Convention of the Law and the Sea (UNCLOS). Concluding the meeting in Vientiane, ASEAN failed to align all member states to issue a joint statement in which it would stand up to China in this maritime conflict.
And how to deal with “different leadership styles”, to put it euphemistically in the case of Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, for example ? Are the rulers in these member states a threat to the cohesion within ASEAN ? They could be, although their unpredictable, radical way of governing their countries may have a greater effect on their relationship with the "international community" in the West, than on their dealings with neighbouring states in Asia.
These are all enormous challenges that ASEAN faces, I have to admit. But the outcome of the Laos meeting is no surprise to me as ASEAN will have to perform a balancing act between being friend or ally with China, and/or with the so-called “international community”. Earlier I mentioned the “Asian way”: addressing regional conflicts or interfering in eachother’s national affairs will not be done “bluntly”. A quick solution putting a superficial plaster on wounds, will not be the way ASEAN will resolve its problems. Complex problems will have to be tackled by means of bilateral talks between individual member states on various levels of government.
Although my speech focused on economic parallels between the EU and ASEAN, whereby economic integration in the fields of trade and investment and economic disparity of its member states were highlighted, it struck me that my fellow speakers as well as the audience at the Conference were quite sceptical on the (future) achievements of ASEAN. They did not have much confidence in ASEAN gradually assuming a leading, both political and economic, role in the region and beyond. The Conference’s audience was made up of approximately 120 Indonesian students, pursuing Bachelor-, Master-, and PhD-degrees in The Netherlands and other EU countries, representing the around 1500 Indonesian higher education students in The Netherlands and over 5000 in Europe.
Recent surveys held in Indonesia and neighbouring countries show that the “awareness” of ASEAN is increasing. In addition to large multinational companies, now also SMEs and individual entrepreneurs are seriously eyeing cross-border opportunities . However, apparently, there is still quite a large number of young people in the region that are hesitant when it comes to truely believing in the concept of ASEAN. The Indonesian students who attended ICAD 2016 pointed out the economic disparity between ASEAN member states and the unwillingness, or incapability, of showing leadership and decisiveness.
I am far most optimistic than some of these Indonesian students and strongly believe that ASEAN will in due course develop into a powerful union. But ASEAN will have to do it the Asian way, looking at the EU for some guidance, in particular from an institutional perspective. Jakarta could become a kind of Brussels, but nevertheless assume its own definition of a central role. Where the EU is struggling to keep its member states on board and is having a hard time enforcing agreements on them, politically as well as economically, ASEAN will work out its own way of dealing with geo-politcal and geo-economic issues. This may be regarded as being indecisive, but quick decisions and agreements without true support lack credibility. The monetary crisis, the refugee crisis, the Brexit, are all examples how NOT to deal with political, economic and humanitarian issues.
As I said earlier, from an institutional perspective and as far as intra-union trade is concerned, the EU is a good example. ASEAN can definately learn from the EU how to better “organize” its institutions and how to boost intra-ASEAN trade and investment. But as far as aligning individual member states on common (?) political and economic (monetary) challenges, ASEAN should create its own framework, whereby initial disparity between member states may not necessarliy be an obstacle. However, its geo-political and geo-economic balancing act is even more delicate than Europe’s. ASEAN is embarking on a cautious and careful course whereby a non-confrontational approach will prove to be far more effective than going head-to-head on matters of national interest or on geo-political sensitivities.
Will this road be a mere “walk in the park”? Definately not, ASEAN will stumble every now and then, face set-backs occasionally. It is a complex journey. As in Europe, ultra-nationalism and populism are also on the rise in Southeast Asia. National governments will have to explain policies in a convincing way in order to avoid xenophobia coming along with migration. There is bilateral friction between member states. Philippine newspaper, The Inquier, as well as the Japan Times, this week expressed their concern on the political indecisiveness of ASEAN. Both articles referred to the ASEAN meeting in Vientiane, Laos, last week, where ASEAN failed to take a firm stance against China’s interference in the South China Sea. The articles questioned China’s commitment to ASEAN’s Code of Conduct in the South China Sea and the international ruling of the arbitral court of the UN Convention of the Law and the Sea (UNCLOS). Concluding the meeting in Vientiane, ASEAN failed to align all member states to issue a joint statement in which it would stand up to China in this maritime conflict.
And how to deal with “different leadership styles”, to put it euphemistically in the case of Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, for example ? Are the rulers in these member states a threat to the cohesion within ASEAN ? They could be, although their unpredictable, radical way of governing their countries may have a greater effect on their relationship with the "international community" in the West, than on their dealings with neighbouring states in Asia.
These are all enormous challenges that ASEAN faces, I have to admit. But the outcome of the Laos meeting is no surprise to me as ASEAN will have to perform a balancing act between being friend or ally with China, and/or with the so-called “international community”. Earlier I mentioned the “Asian way”: addressing regional conflicts or interfering in eachother’s national affairs will not be done “bluntly”. A quick solution putting a superficial plaster on wounds, will not be the way ASEAN will resolve its problems. Complex problems will have to be tackled by means of bilateral talks between individual member states on various levels of government.
