Institutional divergence and convergence in the Asia-Pacific? ASEAN in practice and in theory

Abstract

This paper gives attention to the geopolitics related to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as an alternative model of regionalism in theory and practice. Offering a rough periodization of ASEAN in IR theory, it considers interacting theoretical and empirical developments, and their geopolitics as one way to think about, first, ASEAN, its defining dynamics and processes of change, and, second, ASEAN's relationship to a larger IR theory literature defined by US preoccupations and the institutional trajectory of the European Union. Three periods are considered: a Cold War period, when ASEAN norms and practices developed relatively insulated from great power expectations and theorizing about ASEAN was minimal; the 1990s, when constructivist theorizing encouraged new thinking about alternative institutional models; and the 2000s, a period characterized by correlating great power pressures and a ‘functional’ turn in academic and theoretical debates about ASEAN. Special attention is given to the United States as a major, leading actor in both world politics and the institutionalization of international relations as a discipline, as well as the possibilities and constraints of institutional divergence in theory and practice.

Notes

¹ See former ASEAN Secretary General Rodolfo Severino's (2006) characterization of the ‘ASEAN Way’.

² Elsewhere, I characterize this as the ‘paradox’ of ASEAN (see in Ba 2009, introduction and chapter 1).

³ Consider, for example, the functionalist and neofunctionalist debates and discussions of the 1970s or the regime theory and neo-neo debates of the 1980s, both periods associated with challenges to the European integration process.

⁴ To be clear, the reference here is to the institutionalization of the discipline and its core assumptions, less when the study of, or debates about, IR began. See Smith's (2000) summary of Brian Schmidt's arguments about IR's ‘foundational myths’ (see also Hoffmann 1987).

⁵ According to journal websites accessed on 17 June 2012, the TRIP-identified journals whose editorial boards are most international are International Studies Quarterly and to a lesser extent European Journal of International Relations. Interestingly, the prominence of US-based scholars (33 per cent) is evident even on the board of the British Journal of Political Science. Holsti (1985)'s examination of journal citations also spoke to this ‘Anglo American condominium’, though, as Smith (2000, 393) notes, with the nearly 7:1 ratio of citations in favour of American theorists over British, US dominance is still quite clear.

⁶ Consider, for example, the neo-neo debates, as well as realist preoccupations with hegemonic stability (see, for example, Baldwin 1993; Hasenclaver et al 1997, chapter 4).

⁷ For example, see discussions in Pollack (2001) and de Lombaerde et al (2010).

⁸ See discussion, for example, in Acharya (1998, 199); see also Jayasuriya (1994, 418).

⁹ See also Brown (2001); for a different view, see Caporaso et al (1997).

¹⁰ Peter Katzenstein's World of Regions (2005) offers a rare example of a study that presents the Asian case first, thus setting up Asia, as opposed to Europe, as the referent.

¹¹ On Asia's ‘weak’ institutionalism, see Kahler (2000); for additional critique, see Katzenstein (1997); Kivimaki (2008, 432); Ba (2009, 19).

¹² Ole Waever (1998) goes further, arguing that such questions will also inform the content and development of IR as a discipline in different countries.

¹³ Natasha Hamilton-Hart (2009) further notes how the literature tends to exclude from purview serious non-traditional security challenges facing Southeast Asia.

¹⁴ For a discussion that explicitly compares and contrasts state conceptions in Europe and Southeast Asia and how they contribute to Southeast Asia's ‘statist’ regional project versus Europe's ‘societal’ one, see Jayasuriya (1994, especially 418–419).

¹⁵ For discussions of Southeast Asia's ‘balkanization’ narratives, see Ba (2009). To be clear, my point is not that these conceptions of security were inevitable or fixed. Rather, elite security conceptualizations and responses will reflect local knowledge and challenges. See also Rüland (2005, 557–559) and Acharya (2009) on ‘localization’ processes.

¹⁶ Most notably, consider the limited life and appeal of SEATO and more recently, Australian proposals—the Asia Pacific Community, as well as original ARF and APEC prototypes. See, for example, discussions in Ravenhill (2001) on APEC and in Ba (2009) on the ARF.

¹⁷ This is based on content analysis of the two journals. Preliminary observations were presented by the author at the American Political Science Association Convention in 2008. Consider, also, Krasner (1983) and Baldwin (1993) on the debate – both standard reading for many graduate programs at the time. Their indexes included multiple references to European, Trans-Atlantic, and global organizations but only one non-Euro-American organization – namely, ASEAN, which received only one passing reference or dismissal.

¹⁸ On the ‘capillary lines of state power’ that shaped area programmes, see Cumings (1997).

¹⁹ Such dynamics can also be found among presses of the field where separate divisions are devoted to ‘Asia’ versus ‘international relations’. For example, while some specialized series on the IR of Asia have begun to address this, it has been relatively recent. As late as the early 2000s, it was not uncommon for a book focused an aspect of IR of Asia—especially if the subject was not the grand strategies of greater or rising powers—be directed back and forth between the Asia and IR divisions, each of which saw it as more appropriate for the other.

²⁰ In addition to ascension to ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), EAS members must also have ASEAN dialogue partner status and well-established cooperative relations with ASEAN.

²¹ As an additional caveat, those surveyed were Singapore-based scholars, not necessarily Singaporean by nationality.

²² Wendt was also a top vote-getter in the US, but with more limited consensus (45 per cent). The other top three vote getters in Singapore, in order, were Keohane (75 per cent), Ikenberry (38 per cent) and Waltz (50 per cent).

²³Pacific Review was later followed by the International Relations of the Asia Pacific, whose first issue came out only in 2001. IR theoretical treatments of ASEAN and Asian regionalisms also appeared with greater frequency in established journals like Pacific Affairs, Asian Survey, and Contemporary Southeast Asia.

²⁴ See also Stubbs' (2009, 13) discussion of Higgott's influence as editor in expanding conceptualizations of the developmental state in East and Southeast Asia.

²⁵ Debates over ASEAN as a security community offer one window on both new theorizing and theoretical debate on Southeast Asia. In addition to Acharya (2001), see, for example, Nischalke (2002); Khoo (2004); Ba (2005); Narine (2002, 2006); Garofano (2002). See also Busse (1999); Acharya and Stubbs (2006); Haacke (2003). Another area of inquiry that displays some of the expanded theorizing regards the question of ASEAN's influence vis-à-vis larger powers. See, for example, Katsumata (2003); Ba (2006); Goh (2007–1998); He (2008). See also Eaton and Stubbs (2006).

²⁶ For a very useful collection of essays on the role of Track II, especially the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), see Ball and Kwa (2010).

²⁷ See, for example, ASEAN's 1967 ASEAN Declaration, 1976 Declaration of ASEAN Concord, 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, 1997 ASEAN Vision 2020, 1998 Ha Noi Plan of Action, 2003 Bali Concord II and 2007 ASEAN Charter. See ASEAN website at < http://www.aseansec.org/145.htm>.

²⁸ The other two pillars were Economic and Socio-Political.

²⁹ ‘East Asian community’ has been a persistent theme in characterizations of the ASEAN Plus Three process and its logic. ASEAN, South Korea and Japan have also all drawn on the term to frame their different proposals. See documents and statements at < http://www.aseansec.org/20182.htm>, including the 2001 and 2002 reports of the ‘East Asia Vision Group’ and ‘East Asia Study Group’. In these debates, the European experience informs as a source of inspiration but often as a contrasting model, from which the East Asian community is distinguished.

³⁰ On Australia, see Frost (2009) and Searight (2010). On Japan, see Yuzawa (2005); see also Haacke (2009, 443). On the US see Cossa (2009).

³¹ Assistant Secretary of State (East Asian and Pacific Affairs) Kurt Campbell referring to remarks previously made by Clinton. The other four were: the primacy of the US alliance system and bilateral partnerships; a common regional economic and security agenda; the flexibility of multilateral cooperation; and the inclusion of all key stakeholders, most notably, the United States (see Campbell 2010).

³² The body of Acharya's work gives particular emphasis to this theme.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alice Ba

Dr Alice Ba is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. She obtained her PhD from the University of Vermont. Her research focuses on the international and regional relations of Southeast Asia and is author of (Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia: Regions, Regionalisms, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Stanford University Press, 2009). Email: [email protected]