ASEAN centrality under threat – the cases of RCEP and connectivity

ABSTRACT

This contribution takes stock of ASEAN centrality in trade and the emerging policy area of trade infrastructure, also known as connectivity. ASEAN centrality in the East Asian and Indo-Pacific regions has increasingly been called into question, but most studies have failed to specify what ASEAN centrality is and how it can be measured. Outlining both a technical and a substantial definition, this study presents the state of affairs and current trends of ASEAN centrality in the areas of trade and connectivity. Disaggregating the concept, the paper assesses ASEAN’s role in the two policy areas as a leader, convener, convenience, and necessity. ASEAN’s central position in trade is under threat due to a changing environment, with trade ties increasing between ASEAN’s partners. In addition, ASEAN leadership in the RCEP negotiations has been symbolic rather than substantial. In connectivity, ASEAN centrality is even more questionable. Its regional connectivity vision is contested by other states and relationships act as conduits for the exercise of power.

KEYWORDS:

• ASEAN
• centrality
• RCEP
• connectivity

Notes

¹ Caballero-Anthony, “Understanding ASEAN’s Centrality.”

² Beeson, “Living with Giants.”

³ Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia.

⁴ Goh, “Southeast Asian Strategies Toward the Great Powers.”

⁵ Leifer, “Extending ASEAN’s model”; and Suzuki, “East Asian Cooperation Through Conference Diplomacy.”

⁶ See note 1 above.

⁷ Beeson, “Living with Giants”; and Jones and Jenne, “Weak States’ Regionalism.”

⁸ Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia; Jones, “Still in the ‘Drivers’ Seat’, but for How Long?”; Jones and Jenne, “Weak States’ Regionalism”; and Le Thu, “China’s Dual Strategy of Coercion and Inducement Towards ASEAN.”

⁹ Kraft, “Great Power Dynamics and the Waning of ASEAN Centrality in Regional Security”; and Kuik, “Keeping the Balance.”

¹⁰ Yoshimatsu, “ASEAN and Evolving Power Relations in East Asia.”

¹¹ Jones and Jenne, “Weak States’ Regionalism,” 234.

¹² Acharya, “The Myth of ASEAN Centrality?” 273.

¹³ See note 1 above.

¹⁴ Ibid., 573.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Tan, “Rethinking ‘ASEAN Centrality’ in the Regional Governance of East Asia.”

¹⁷ Ibid., 726–730.

¹⁸ Ibid., 723–726, Ibid., 731–733.

¹⁹ Ibid., 733–735.

²⁰ Acharya, “The Myth of ASEAN Centrality?”.

²¹ Caballero-Anthony, “Understanding ASEAN’s Centrality,” 566.

²² Acharya, “Competing Communities.”

²³ Wilson, “Mega-Regional Trade Deals in the Asia-Pacific.”

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Hsieh, “The RCEP, New Asian Regionalism and the Global South.”

²⁶ Oba, “TPP, RCEP, and FTAAP”; and Hsieh, “The RCEP, New Asian Regionalism and the Global South.”

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Oba, “TPP, RCEP, and FTAAP.”

²⁹ Wang, “The RCEP Initiative and ASEAN Centrality.”

³⁰ See note 28 above.

³¹ ASEAN Member State Official, Interview by author, Jakarta, April 18 2019.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ye, “China and Competing Cooperation in Asia-Pacific.”

³⁴ See note 28 above.

³⁵ Fukunaga and Isono, “Taking ASEAN+ 1 FTAs Towards the RCEP.”

³⁶ ASEAN Secretariat Official, Interview by author, Jakarta, February 27 2019.

³⁷ See note 29 above.

³⁸ See note 23 above.

³⁹ See note 28 above.

⁴⁰ Pomfret, “ASEAN’s New Frontiers.”

⁴¹ Fukunaga, “ASEAN’s Leadership in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership”.

⁴² ASEAN Secretariat Official, Interview by author, Jakarta, February 27 2019; and Hsieh, “The RCEP, New Asian Regionalism and the Global South.”

⁴³ Wang, “The RCEP Initiative and ASEAN Centrality,” 130.

⁴⁴ See note 31 above.

⁴⁵ See note 31 above.

⁴⁶ Chinese Ministry of Commerce. “The 15^th Round of Negotiations of China-Japan-ROK FTA Held in Tokyo.”

⁴⁷ See note 25 above.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Müller, “Governing Regional Connectivity in Southeast Asia.”

⁵⁰ Asian Development Bank, “Meeting Asia’s Infrastructure Needs.”

⁵¹ See note 49 above.

⁵² Malaysian Ministry of Finance, “ASEAN Infrastructure Fund (AIF).”

⁵³ Vejjajiva, “Statement by H.E. Abhisit Vejjajiva.”

⁵⁴ Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Thailand’s Proposal on the ‘3Cs’ for ASEAN.”

⁵⁵ ASEAN Secretariat, “Summary Record of the ASEAN Connectivity Coordinating Committee (ACCC) Consultations.”

⁵⁶ ASEAN External Partner, Interview by author, Jakarta, February 13 2019.

⁵⁷ ASEAN External Partner, Interview by author, Jakarta, February 16 2018.

⁵⁸ He, “Institutional Balancing and International Relations Theory.”

⁵⁹ See note 49 above.

⁶⁰ ASEAN Secretariat, “Summary Record of the ASEAN Connectivity Coordinating Committee (ACCC) Consultations.”; ASEAN External Partner, Interview by author, Jakarta, February 13 2018; ASEAN External Partner, Interview by author, Jakarta, March 5 2018; and Australian Aid, “Our Program AADCP II.”

⁶¹ Goh and Reilly, “How China’s Belt and Road Builds Connections.”

⁶² Kuik, Li and Ling, “The Institutional Foundations and Features of China-ASEAN Connectivity.”

⁶³ ASEAN Secretariat, “ASEAN-China Strategic Partnership Vision 2030.”

⁶⁴ Rana and Ji, “China Is Paving a Belt and Road 2.0.”

⁶⁵ Goh and Reilly, “How China’s Belt and Road Builds Connections”; and Rana and Ji, “China Is Paving a Belt and Road 2.0.”

⁶⁶ Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Japan’s Assistance to ASEAN Connectivity in Line with MPAC 2025.”

⁶⁷ Hong, “Chinese and Japanese Infrastructure Investment in Southeast Asia.”

⁶⁸ ASEAN External Partner, Interview by author, Jakarta, May 8 2018; and Sonoura, “Japan’s Initiatives for Promoting ‘Quality Infrastructure Investment’.”

⁶⁹ Sonoura, “Japan’s Initiatives for Promoting ‘Quality Infrastructure Investment’.”

⁷⁰ See note 55 above.

⁷¹ The Jakarta Post, “ASEAN, South Korea to boost regional connectivity.”

⁷² The Diplomat, “ASEAN and India Converge on Connectivity.”

⁷³ The Diplomat, “South Korea Eyes ASEAN’s Port Projects Amid Domestic Slowdown.”

⁷⁴ See note 55 above.

⁷⁵ Ibid.

⁷⁶ European Commission, Connecting Europe and Asia.

⁷⁷ See note 57 above.

⁷⁸ CSIS, “The BUILD Act Has Passed.”

⁷⁹ See note 63 above.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the German Academic Scholarship Foundation.

Notes on contributors

Lukas Maximilian Mueller

Lukas Maximilian Mueller is a research associate at the Chair of International Politics at the University of Freiburg, Germany. His work mainly concerns regional integration and the external relations of regional organizations in Southeast Asia as well as in West Africa. In addition, he  has worked as a consultant for the Asia-Europe Foundation, providing capacity building on national SDG implementation in the CLMV countries. His research interests include comparative regionalism, interregionalism, EU foreign policy, and sustainable development.