- Site Feedback
- IDEA Sites
- Digital Freedoms
- 2012 Presidential Debates Guide
- Asia Youth Forum
- Big Apple Cogers
- Debate Changing Europe
- Debate in the Neighborhood
- Debating and Producing Media
- Debating the Future of Youth in Africa and Europe
- Digital Debating Blog
- Free Speech Debate
- Global Youth Forum
- Global Debate and Public Policy Challenge
- International Public Policy Forum
- Online Mentoring
- The Freedom Series
- Youth and Sports Mega-Events
This House would disband ASEAN
This House would disband ASEAN
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was founded in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. In 1984 Brunei Darussalam was admitted, followed by Vietnam in 1995, Laos and Myanmar/Burma in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999. Combined, they have a population of about 500 million, a total area of 4.5 million square kilometers, a combined gross domestic product of US$737 billion, and a total trade of US$ 720 billion.
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: (i) to accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian nationsand (ii) to promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.In 1995, the ASEAN Heads of States and Government re-affirmed that "Cooperative peace and shared prosperity shall be the fundamental goals of ASEAN."
It's a common opinion that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations determination to have consensus on all issues among its diverse membership will prevent the organisation from being effective within a rapidly changing world that requires fast coordinated responses to crises whether economic or military. This debate examines whether ASEAN is beneficial or on the contrary
|Points For||Points Against|
|ASEAN governments conduct questionable policies but go uncriticised.||ASEAN has a security community.|
|ASEAN creates too many problems and does not work properly.||ASEAN partnership contributes towards peace, progress and prosperity in the region.|
|ASEAN encourages its members to turn to their inward markets.||ASEAN helps members protect their culture and creates a distinct Southeast Asian style in the meantime.|
|Expansion has undermined the economic solidity of the Association.||ASEAN promotes economic stability.|
|ASEAN is becoming more open.|
Remember to choose a winning argument!
ASEAN governments conduct questionable policies but go uncriticised.
Allowing Burma to join ASEAN seemed to signal approval of that regime's record on human rights. The forum often offers a shield for Myanmar's regime ("Burma, also known as Myanmar, is ruled by a military junta which suppresses almost all dissent and wields absolute power in the face of international condemnation and sanctions."1) from external criticism.
ASEAN has taken Burma in as a member and taking an approach of 'constructive engagement' however this prevents any member from speaking out on Burmese human rights abuses, even should they wish too2. Constructive engagement' means that ASEAN hoped that peaceful change would be made by the Junta if ASEAN offered incentives, burma would slowly be changed by membership. This creates the difficulty that once they are members such states expect to be protected by ASEAN's norms, damaging ASEAN in the eyes of the rest of the world3.
Other regimes conduct questionable (at best) policies, such as Thailand's treatment of the Karen or Indonesia's approach in the past inAceh or East Timor, but go uncriticised.Improve this
Prospects for improving the specific human rights problems in Myanmar/Burma – and for offending regimes in the region more generally – are better if the country is included and given incentives to improve, than if it is excluded and left as a pariah state. Much background diplomacy is done and pressure exerted through the channels of ASEAN.
Furthermore there is actually international criticism – “ASEAN's top dialogue partners, including the United States, the European Union and Japan, also weighed in with concerns. "We urge Myanmar to create the necessary conditions for credible elections, including releasing all political prisoners, especially Aung San Suu Kyi, respecting human rights and cease the attacks against ethnic minorities," US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists...” 
 Jagan, Larry. 'ASEAN, Myanmar agree to disagree', 27/07/2010 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LG27Ae02.html.Improve this
ASEAN creates too many problems and does not work properly.
ASEAN is a total waste of time. It is expensive and it diverts attention from the proper efforts of members’ governments – pursuit of the national interest. It is yet another unnecessary talking shop. Members frequently disagree with one another (on important international relations issues like the war on Iraq, and on regional economic issues like labour laws), so the idea that it helps present a ‘united front’ is incorrect- ”… Yet, the "new" ASEAN looks a lot like the old one: united more in word than reality. If its divisions are not bridged and ASEAN does not become a vehicle for real action, the charter may prove to be ASEAN's tombstone rather than its future blueprint.” 
Its institutions involve surprisingly high costs (especially high when they don’t achieve anything) but still complain of under-resourcing; members are unwilling to commit any more funds, so nobody is happy. Best to scrap it.
 ''New' ASEAN, old problems', 5/03/2009, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20090305a1.htmlImprove this
These are generic oppositions to any international organisation. But in truth ASEAN, by allowing its members to work together, makes possible achievements that they cannot easily achieve alone. When ASEAN speaks it speaks for ten countries: that offers a much greater voice on the international stage. Having experienced rapid economic growth over the last few decades ASEAN is now in a position to be more than a talking shop. “On the world stage, the Association has positioned itself as a focal forum for Asia-wide international diplomacy (in the form of ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6 meetings). Locally, that is to say, within the region itself, ASEAN now strives to be an organization – or even more optimistically, an affective entity – upon which a sense of “one sharing, caring community,” of Southeast Asians can be envisioned and enacted.” 1
Furthermore, the regular high-level dialogue the organisation enables between representatives of nations that have a history of antagonism and war with one another is highly beneficial. It’s true that the institutions of the organisation involve some small cost, but it’s worth it. Finally, a false choice is being offered by the proposition: it’s often the case that members are advancing their national interests by their membership.
1. Thompson, Eric. 'Attitudes and Awareness toward ASEAN: Findings of a Ten Nation Survey'.Improve this
ASEAN encourages its members to turn to their inward markets.
Global free trade is or should be the aim of all countries. Unions such as ASEAN encourage their members to turn inwards, replacing the traditional narrow-minded nationalist vision with a regionalist closed-mind mentality. “…The consequence has been a lack of economic integration, revealed in the slow growth of intra-ASEAN trade. From the inception of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) in 1993 until 2002, intra-ASEAN trade as a share of all exports only increased from 21.14 percent to 22.75 percent. Even these figures do not tell the whole story. Much of this intra-ASEAN trade is, in reality, intra-firm trade—the transfer of unfinished goods between various production sites of transnational companies in the region, with the final intended market being the major economies.”  They may also offer a false sense of participation in the international economic sphere when the great leap to world trade is at last a possibility.
 Roberts, John. 'ASEAN’s problems on display at Bali summit', 30/10/2003, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/asea-o30.shtmlImprove this
Smaller unions – of which ASEAN is one, the EU and NAFTA are others – may be seen as stepping stones to world trade, not stumbling blocks – they make the transition easier by encouraging the move from state-based economic thinking to wider horizons. “In a positive signal, the group signed free-trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, which is expected to increase trade among the 12 countries by $48 billion by 2020. A similar deal with India is expected later this year. Equally significant, ASEAN is moving forward with plans to put a $120 billion currency swap agreement in place by April.” 
 ''New' ASEAN, old problems', 5/03/2009, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20090305a1.htmlImprove this
Expansion has undermined the economic solidity of the Association.
Expansion has undermined the economic solidity of the Association. Members whose economies are unsound have been admitted for political reasons ““The older members of ASEAN shared common values and an antipathy to Communism. Those values had been “muddied” by the new members, and their economic and social problems made it doubtful they would ever behave like the older ASEAN members,” [former Prime Minister of Singapore] Lee argued.” … ”Lee also said he was wary about some members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), noting that Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam should not have been accepted.” 
ASEAN members still consider the benefits of ASEAN in realist terms, that cooperation brings greater bargaining power rather than in liberal terms of deepening the bonds between members.  Therefore rather than joining for economic engagement Vietnam’s main motivation was that the loss of its external support in the form of the USSR meant it needed ASEAN to balance against China.  This expansion of ASEAN has had negative effects in creating divisions within the organization with in what is a consensus based system the result of stagnation.
 Lee Kuan Yew. 'ASEAN should not have admitted Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam', 17/12/2010.
WikiLeaks. 'Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew disdains Myanmar leaders', 15/12/2010,http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1605793.php/WikiLeaks-Singapore-s-Lee-Kuan-Yew-disdains-Myanmar-leaders
Kay Moller, ‘Cambodia and Burma, the ASEAN way stops here’, Asian Survey, Vol. 38, No. 12. (Dec., 1998), pp. 1087-1104. p.1101.
Barry Buzan, ‘Security architecture in Asia: the interplay of regional and global levels’, The Pacific Review, Vol.16, No.2, (2003), pp.143-173, p.154.Improve this
This is an investment. It is true that countries like Cambodia may be weak economically right now, but investing in them allows other members to get in 'on the ground floor' as industry grows and the benefits to the new country are obvious. It should be remembered that there is no common currency like the euro, so members don't run the same direct risk from having weaker economies on board anyway.
There is nothing wrong in considering the benefits of a union in a realist terms. International competition promotes greater efficiency in the allocation of resources. Hence the example with Vietnam is irrelevant. Vietnam's economy is subjected to competition from the other ASEAN countries; resources are pulled towards those activities that generate greater income and welfare of its people. The accession to the CEPT Agreement and Vietnam's participation in many other areas of ASEAN economic cooperation such as intellectual property, services, industrial cooperation and investment also sends a strong signal to foreign investors of the direction of her economic policies. They strengthen the perception that Vietnam is firmly committed to the continuing liberalization of her trade and investment regime.Improve this
ASEAN has a security community.
Recognising the strong interconnections among political, economic and social realities, the ASEAN Security Community acknowledges the principle of comprehensive security, and commits to address the broad political, economic, social and cultural aspects of building an ASEAN Community. It is also acknowledged that political and social stability, economic prosperity, narrowed development gap, poverty alleviation and reduction of social disparity would constitute strong foundation for a sustained ASC given its subscription to the principle of comprehensive security.
In working towards this objective, ASEAN Member Countries shall promote political development in support of ASEAN Leaders' shared vision and common values to achieve peace, stability, democracy and prosperity in the region. This is the highest political commitment that would serve as the basis for ASEAN political cooperation. In order to better respond to the new dynamics within the respective ASEAN Member Countries, ASEAN shall nurture such common socio-political values and principles. In this context, ASEAN Member Countries shall not condone unconstitutional and undemocratic changes of government or the use of their territory for any actions undermining peace, security and stability of other ASEAN Member Countries1.Improve this
ASEAN has always avoided having a collective security treaty, making the institution's guarantee of peace in the region purely informal. (10) ASEAN therefore has to rely upon collective interest to overcome any unilateral interest among member states. This lack of a regime for collective or common security has meant that ASEAN has not always taken joint action on security issues, particularly where members have conflicting interests. The most obvious example is competition over the reefs and islands in the South China Sea. All of the states around the South China Sea, except Cambodia and Thailand, claim some of the disputed reefs and at least five have put naval stations or military bases on the reefs, while the frequency of incidents between over the conflicting claims have been increasing. These reefs are significant due to their proximity to important sea lanes and the expectation of large energy reserves1. As ASEAN is not a security regime with a joint policy there was no combined approach when China occupied Mischief reef in 1995, claimed by the Philippines, although there was a joint statement expressing concern ASEAN made little further progress allowing negotiations to be carried out bilaterally between the various claimants. This was further emphasised by the Philippines appealing to the US to honor the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual defense treaty. One reason for the failure to act together was that there were conflicting claims among ASEAN members, but also ASEAN did not wish to antagonise China as China was needed for the Asian Regional Forum to be successful2.
1Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars, (Henry Holt and Co., New York, 2002), p.112
2Sharpe, 'Security', p.242.
ASEAN partnership contributes towards peace, progress and prosperity in the region.
There are a lot of relevant examples on successful unions - the EU and NATO examples of multilateral bodies where there is peace between members. They manage to stay united and work together in times of crisis, global conflicts and other problems in the name of their own interest and prosperity. Such is the case with ASEAN.
The Bangkok declaration put as ASEAN's primary aim "To promote regional peace and stability" and set up some mechanisms to carry out the organizations aims. ASEAN's approach is less about the mechanisms of the organization than the norms that the organizations members follow. ASEAN membership has been the first guarantee of peace among the members. Membership "promote[s] regional cooperation in South-East Asia in the spirit of equality and partnership and thereby contribute[s] towards peace, progress and prosperity in the region"1. Simply being in an organization creates a norm of peaceful relations between the members. This gives ASEAN a flexibility, without anything set in stone the institution can adapt.Improve this
There are so many constraints on success of ASEAN: the EU and NATO example of multilateral bodies where there is peace between members is so much more difficult to achieve in Asia. The main point here is the difference between NATO/ the EU and between ASEAN, and that is that the former organisations all have at least one big thing in common: all their members have the same form of government and economy.Furthermore many argue that overall the ASEAN is a failure - ”…These successive changes produced a chaotic and weak structure, and proponents of the 2007 ASEAN Charter desired a document that would enable ASEAN to better facilitate economic integration and enhance security cooperation among the members. But they failed because of deeply seated norms, encapsulated by the "ASEAN Way." 
 NOTE: THE ASEAN CHARTER: ASEAN FAILURE OR MEMBER FAILURE? 2010, https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=43+N.Y.U.+J.+Int%27l+L.+%26+Pol.+159&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=8de3e97357c0498ce74c979830100cc0Improve this
ASEAN helps members protect their culture and creates a distinct Southeast Asian style in the meantime.
The tide of westernisation is what ASEAN intends to protect its members from, by offering a platform of regional activity that is distinctly different, distinctly southeast Asian.
Left to their own devices, these cultures often fall back on age-old rivalries and resentments. A forum that stresses the advantages and potential of the region working together is vital to prevent recurrence of this.Furthermore in today's globalized world some previously important interests such as religion matter relevantly less than things like the economy, prosperity, development etc. Due to the economic similarities and identical economic interests of the ASEAN countries, this union is highly advantageous to them, leaving religion rather in the background.
With the huge differences in culture, language, religion and other in ASEAN, it is incredibly impressive they have got so far in integrating and instilling norms in their member states that should be seen only as success. As it would be impossible to have the same level of integration and cooperation in ASEAN because of nation states huge differences, we should only consider ASEAN's regional role as a huge step in the right direction and one that facilitates negotiation and normative constraints between member states and regionally.Improve this
The southeast Asian region is one of extraordinary diversity. In ASEAN there are divergent cultures and systems of Government among the members, in Huntington's civilisational terms ASEAN at its creation had one Sinic, one Buddhist, one Christian and two Muslim states. Huntington considers this a major break on attempts at ASEAN integration that reduces ASEAN's effectiveness . Controversial issues have to be avoided because as Indonesia's director-general for political affairs Izhar Ibrahim feared "the participants concerned would begin attacking each other." Faiths, cultures, traditions – its peoples vary wildly. ASEAN seeks to place over the top of all that a Western-style, suits-and-ties forum that not only encourages the already occurring, unfortunate process of westernisation; it also promotes homogeneity amongst those who should be celebrating their differences.
 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order, (The Free Press, London, 2002), p.132.Improve this
ASEAN promotes economic stability.
ASEAN's main purpose is to provide economic stability for its members. Everyone suffered, inside and outside of the Association, during the Asian financial crisis when nobody took precautions. ASEAN's members recovered more quickly than other, more developed nations, like Japan. ASEAN offers its members financial benefits that must not be ignored. The economies of the poorer countries gain enormously from being able to use effectively their comparative advantage of lower worker cost under low/no tariff regimes, whilst the more developed countries have new markets opened up under low/no export/import restrictions."Clearly, the ASEAN nations have learned a lesson over the years after the devastating 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, and the caution borne of the disaster is paying off now. Economically, the financial crisis a decade ago has helped the ASEAN become a more insulated and more integrated regional economy."1 ASEAN is therefore now in a much better position to take on a much bigger economic role.Improve this
It has been demonstrated in 1997 that ASEAN cannot achieve economic stability for its members. When the Asian financial crisis swept over all members, the much-vaunted Association did nothing to protect them.
“The Asian financial crisis began in May 1997 when, following a prolonged investment boom in East and Southeast Asia, currency speculators began selling the Thai bhat and other local currencies.(…) Nevertheless, economic catastrophe struck the region as stock markets declined and debt rose dramatically. Worse, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) proposals ultimately exacerbated the ex- ASEAN’s response exposed it as an organization unable to handle complex economic difficulties, undermining its image as the source of Southeast Asia’s strength. In the early months of the crisis, ASEAN regarded the attacks on the baht as simply a domestic problem, and played no role when several Asian banks provided assistance to Thailand. Observers thus became sceptical that ASEAN could continue to provide effective regional leadership. 
 THE ASEAN CHARTER: ASEAN FAILURE OR MEMBER FAILURE? www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/...law.../ecm_pro_068232.pdf.Improve this
ASEAN is becoming more open.
ASEAN is becoming more open. Thailand in particular wishes for greater openness as it is the country faced with migrants fleeing the Junta in Burma, Thailand also has proposed an ASEAN peoples forum to engage with the domestic audience. Both Indonesia and the Philippines publicly criticised Malaysia over the sacking and imprisonment of Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in 19981.
1Hiro Katsumata, 'Why is ASEAN Diplomacy Changing From "Non-Interference" to "Open and frank Discussion" Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No.2, (2004), pp.237-254, pp.242-248Improve this
ASEAN compartmentalises to control disputes, bilateral problems are kept out of ASEAN, they are therefore not resolved within ASEAN. This allows ASEAN to concentrate on issues that can build cooperation and means that ASEAN can keep up a successful image. However this has obvious problems in a globalising world where it is increasingly difficult to control the media agenda1.
1Michael Antolik, ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accommodation, (M.E. Sharpe, London, 1990), p.100-102.
Antolik, Michael, ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accommodation, (M.E. Sharpe, London, 1990), p.100-102.
‘ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action’, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, http://www.asean.org/16826.htm
ASEAN, Bangkok Declaration, Bangkok, 8 August 1967, http://www.aseansec.org/1212.htm
BBC News, Burma country profile, updated 29 April 2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1300003.stm
Buzan, Barry, ‘Security architecture in Asia: the interplay of regional and global levels’, The Pacific Review, Vol.16, No.2, (2003), pp.143-173
Huntington, Samuel P., ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of world order’, The Free Press, London, 2002
Jagan, Larry, ‘ASEAN, Myanmar agree to disagree’, Asia Times, 27 July 2010, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LG27Ae02.html
Japan Times, 'New' ASEAN, old problems 5 March 2009, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20090305a1.html
Katsumata, Hiro, ‘Why is ASEAN Diplomacy Changing From “Non-Interference” to “Open and frank Discussion” Asian Survey, Vol. 44, No.2, (2004), pp.237-254, pp.242-248
Kay Moller, ‘Cambodia and Burma, the ASEAN way stops here’, Asian Survey, Vol. 38, No. 12. (Dec., 1998), pp. 1087-1104.
Klare, Michael T., Resource Wars, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 2002
Leviter, Lee, ‘THE ASEAN CHARTER: ASEAN FAILURE OR MEMBER FAILURE?’ New York University, 2010, http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_international_law_and_politics/documents/documents/ecm_pro_068232.pdf
‘WikiLeaks: Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew disdains Myanmar leaders’, 15 December 2010, http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1605793.php/WikiLeaks-Singapore-s-Lee-Kuan-Yew-disdains-Myanmar-leaders
‘Commentary: Dear lesson ASEAN learnt in 1997 paying off now’, People’s Daily Online, 15 October 2008, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90884/6515685.html
Roberts, John, ‘ASEAN’s problems on display at Bali summit’ World Socialist Web Site, 30 October 2003, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/oct2003/asea-o30.shtml
Sharpe, Samuel, ‘An ASEAN way to Security cooperation in South-East Asia’, The Pacific Review, Vol.16, No.2, (2003), pp.231-250
Thompson, Eric, and Thianthai, Chulanee, ‘Attitudes and Awareness toward ASEAN: Findings of a Ten Nation Survey’, ASEAN Foundation, http://www.aseanfoundation.org/documents/Attitudes%20and%20Awareness%20Toward%20ASEAN.pdf
Yew, Lee Kuan, ‘ASEAN should not have admitted Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam’, intellasia.net, 17 December 2010, http://www.intellasia.net/news/articles/regional/111311546.shtml
Be a debatabase editor
Idebate needs editors from around the world to check, moderate and create content for debatabase and the site more generally. Editors are vital in making the site run smoothly and ensuring that debates are as informative as possible.