The Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Abstract

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) can be regarded as the key subregional grouping in Southeast Asia. It was founded in the city of Bangkok on 8 August 1967 by agreement between Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. They were joined on 8 January 1984 by Brunei and on 28 July 1995 by Vietnam, with the addition of Laos and Myanmar on 23 July 1997 almost completing the long-cherished aim of an ‘ASEAN-10’. Only the absence of Cambodia stands in the way of this goal but its membership, scheduled for the same day as Laos and Myanmar, was delayed following the coup led by the Second Prime Minister Hun Sen. The goal of the organization, enshrined in the Bangkok Declaration of 1967, was summarized and made explicit in 1983 by the then Prime Minister of Thailand, Prem Tinsulanonda, in his opening address to the 16th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting when he stated categorically that ASEAN ‘stands for peace and prosperity for Southeast Asia’.1 Two points of immediate interest may be drawn from this statement. First, it is clear that prosperity is understood as a mechanism through which to achieve peace and stability, both within individual ASEAN states and amongst members of the organization. Economic growth is apparently primary and central in this regard. Second, is a belief that what can be done within ASEAN can be achieved elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Intra-ASEAN economic cooperation is thus not concerned simply with wealth creation but has wider social and political goals. In combination, these two points lead us to surmise that ASEAN is to be understood not just as a structure, the institutional agglomeration of member state interests, but as a process redolent with meanings and aspirations. In this chapter we explore this notion of ASEAN as a process rather than as a static ensemble of states and state interests. Far too often, an understandable interest in the institution of ASEAN obscures rather than reveals the power relationships inherent within it. In this regard, the signal failure of Prem Tinsulanond to make any mention of, let alone connection between, prosperity and democracy is particularly marked. ASEAN has not only failed large sections of its collective population in economic terms but, so too, has it failed to promote the cause of democratic accountability. It may well, then, stand for peace and prosperity for Southeast Asia, but only for some.KeywordsWorld OrderASEAN StateAsia Pacific Economic CooperationGlobal Political EconomyASEAN Regional ForumThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.