ASEAN and Non‑interference: A Principle Maintained

Abstract

leaders have maintained their traditional respect for the principle of non-interference in the affairs of states, despite predictions to the contrary as human rights issues have come to the fore in Southeast Asia's politics. Calls for constructive engagement from within and outside ASEAN, in the light of grave human rights abuses in Cambodia and Myanmar, have ultimately gone unheeded by leaders. This overt stance in favour of non-interference seems incongruous with a more subtle, historical approach of actual in each other's affairs. The two are reconciled thus: publicly A SEAN leaders adhere to the vaunted ASEAN way of non-interference while privately, behind-the-scenes, quiet diplomacy interference takes place to resolve issues causing tension between states. This practice contrasts sharply with that of Western countries, which favour intervention for humanitarian reasons. Introduction Since the formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967 its members have adhered strictly to a principle of non-interference in the affairs of states. Non-interference stems from the traditional notions in international relations of equality of the sovereignty of states (from diminutive Singapore to mammoth Indonesia) and the consequent right to exclusive sovereignty. The respect for non-interference in each other's affairs has been a cardinal principle, and characteristic of concord since ASEAN's creation. In the post-Cold War era, however, the principle has come under strain. A practice contradictory in this respect appeared in connection with political turmoil in three Southeast Asian states, two prospective members (Cambodia and Myanmar), and the other a founding member of (Indonesia). This new practice begs two interrelated questions. Is the principle of sovereign equality of states disappearing? Or, is there a qualitative change in the concept of exclusive sov ereignty and the consequent non-interference? A hypothesis which is explored in this article is that there is a qualitative change in the concept of non-interference in the sovereign affairs of another state. The quality that distinguishes the concept from its traditional sense, strict adherence to non-interference, is the notion that a state will only be considered equal in its sovereignty if it ensures minimum standards of good governance for its citizens. In other words, treat your citizens well and we can do business. An examination of this hypothesis will lead us through, first, a brief discussion of the enshrinement of the concept of exclusive sovereignty as a fundamental principle governing inter-state relations; secondly, members' practice of non-interference; and thirdly, the forces motivating qualitative change in the principle of sovereign equality of states. The Principle of Sovereign Equality of States and Good Governance The concept of sovereignty is an elusive one that is hard to define. As Louis Halle notes in his foreword to Robert Klein's Sovereign Equality Among States: The History of an Idea: [I]nternational relations are determined by the myths that, as surrogates for realities beyond our comprehension, dominate our minds. The myths may represent the realities more or less truly, more or less falsely, with corresponding consequences, for good or evil, when action is taken on the bases they provide. [1] One such myth is that of sovereignty. As Klein shows, throughout history, by a process of analogy with individual personality, the state has acquired a corporate personality. The concept of sovereignty has evolved from being a signifier of the authority of an individual ruler (king, emperor) to a signifier of the authority of the people. The Romans dealt with associations of human beings as real persons; groups of individuals acting together were said to have a single legal personality. Hobbes applied the concept of personality to the territorial state, for the most part identified with the ruler, which permitted pinning on these new political entities rights and duties towards each other. …