A recent article compared the origins and development of the South Asian Asso ciation for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), seeking to analyse SAARC's prospects by drawing some lessons from new experiences of ASEAN.1 This complementary essay will attempt to amplify and give different shades of emphasis to the conclusions drawn in that ground-breaking study. Some comparison between South Asia and Southeast Asia as case-studies on regional co-operation will also be made. The primary lessons drawn from the ASEAN experience were presented as: pursue goals that are simple and workable rather than grandiose show-case items; work through an indigenized system for planning. A second set of observations relates to decision-making style. The ASEAN experience argues for informality, frequent discussions, patience ? progress will take time ? and the use of public exposure to draw in non-governmental groups to promote co-operation. All of the above can well serve as guidelines for SAARC interaction. Underlying such mechanics, however, a more important factor was discussed: There was not only the political will to submerge some of the differences for the sake of peace and stability within the sub-region but the members also saw clearly their unity as beneficial in relation to third countries.2 Common political will is explained by a convergence of interests which must precede and be the foundation for the diplomatic mechanics in a political process. To illustrate this, remember that ASEAN's predecessor, the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA), incorporated many of the rules, procedures, and guidelines that supported ASEAN interaction in the first ten years; but it lasted barely three years before conflicting individual national and regime interests rendered it moribund. Consequently, the questions of importance to SAARC members ? how and why ASEAN members came to possess the political will to co-operate ? are best explained by a discussion of the interests common to the ASEAN governments. A first observation is that the motivating interests of the states have varied at different times during the history of their association. As different internal and situations have prevailed, different ASEAN case-studies and different lessons can be drawn. A first case is the post-formation era which well illustrates that one important commonality uniting the ASEAN members was an external threat, which at a general level meant communism.3 To emphasize and lend strength to this factor, it should be noted that in the early years, unlike today, there was a shared focus on one threatening factor, Maoist China, which was equated 221