Arguing about ASEAN: what do we disagree about?

Abstract

This article argues that ASEAN has been, will remain, an essentially contested institution. No one has claimed, or could claim, that ASEAN is a flawless organization, but at the same time, the characterization of ASEAN as a dysfunctional entity or a talk shop is misplaced. The reality lies in taking the middle ground as the articles in this special issue show. Research and debate on ASEAN should be based on comparing its record with other regional associations in the developing world and using some agreed criteria about what success or failure means. And disagreements about ASEAN's role should be welcomed as part of a healthy debate.

Notes

¹ The citation is my translation of ‘Penyusunan Piagam ASEAN bertujuan untuk mentransformasikan ASEAN dari sebuah asosiasi politik yang longgar menjadi organisasi internasional yang memiliki legal personality, berdasarkan aturan yang profesional (rule-based organization), serta memiliki struktur organisasi yang efektif dan efisien’ (Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2007, 30).

² The lower house of the Indonesian legislature (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat), through its Komisi I (First Commission) has been quite active in seeking to influence Indonesian official policy towards Myanmar. As befits a democratic institution, its members have, in their meetings with Indonesian ministries, proposed policies that range from strongly opposing Myanmar's military regime to treading cautiously in dealing with the Junta for geopolitical reasons (mainly being wary of attempts by powers like India and China to take advantage of a prolonged domestic turmoil in Myanmar), see Kompas (2007).