After 41 years of establishment, Asean still has not been able to create a regional identity for itself.

On August 8, Asean will celebrate its 41st anniversary. Yet, the organisation’s limited institutional capacity to provide prosperity for all Southeast Asians is frequently criticised.

On its 41st anniversary, Asean will still be an organisation that focuses on Southeast Asia’s political elites rather than on community relations between its member states.

Moreover, it will still be well-known only among such elites, rather than among the region’s people.
Last year, Asean’s leaders signed the Asean charter. Will it compel them to be more people-centric?

In order to integrate poltical elites with the public, Asean must first accomplish several things. One is to accelerate the establishment of an Asean regional identity—that is, a collective or supranational identity that, at the very least, makes reference to all Asean member states. Put simply, regional identity comprises two categories.

First: Symbolic or institutional identity, which will be the easier of the two to establish. Aside from the Asean logo, flag, secretariat and the Southeast Asian Games, several symbolic identities can still be exploited to promote an overall regional identity known among the people, such as an Asean theme song and, if possible, the celebration of Asean’s founding as a common holiday in Southeast Asia.

The promotion and establishment of Asean or Southeast Asian studies centres could provide yet another symbolic identity. Despite being one of the most important points raised in the Bangkok declaration of 1967, promotion of Southeast Asian studies occurs in only a few universities within the Asean member states. Only Singapore boasts a Southeast Asian studies centre.

In this context, increasing cooperation between Southeast Asia’s universities should also be emphasised—what we might call an “epistemic” or academic community.

Even though a network exists between universities in Southeast Asia (the Asean Network of Universities), it involves only a few public universities. Private universities should also be involved, to increase academic collaboration.

Second, there is value identity, which is based on common norms and values and therefore more difficult to establish, particularly given Southeast Asian’s sociocultural diversity, including conflicting political ideologies and varying levels of economic development.

Indeed, variation—with respect to economic, political and cultural conditions—has become Asean’s defining characteristic. For this reason, it is rather difficult to create a common Asean identity.

To encourage the establishment of an Asean regional identity, accelerate national integration and reverse national disintegration, the value of bhinneka tunggal ika or “unity in diversity” must be promoted.

Although Asean nations seem to possess several common values—such as consensus, noninterference, peaceful settlement of disputes, renunciation of the use of force, protection of human rights and promotion of social justice—these values have been interpreted rather differently by Asean members. For instance, Burma’s record on human rights and democratic advancement is quite distinct.

Indonesia will certainly strive to make respect for democracy, and human and other civil rights the basic values of the Asean community. However, given current conditions in Burma and Thailand—conditions that frustrate the advance of democracy and human rights—this will not be easy.

The creation of common values becomes crucial in the event of conflicts of interest between Asean nations. In such cases, national—as opposed to regional—interests will, surely, be prioritised.

Within Asean, a high correlation persists between national interest and national identity. Conflicts of national interest could therefore disrupt cohesion of and integration into a unitary Asean body.

Increasing Asean’s community involvement and relevance will not be an easy task. We need to establish, within the Asean charter, concrete steps toward forming regional identity.

To that end, it is time for Asean to consider changing its foreign policy decision making paradigm from “state leads a society” approach to “society leads the state” approach.

Under the latter, community plays a larger role in conceiving and conducting foreign policy, resulting in an overall expansion in community involvement and greater use of participatory decision-making. The result for Asean would be increased relevance in the lives of its communities.

The writer is professor of international relations at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung. (By ANAK AGUNG BANYU PERWITA In Bandung/ The Jakarta Post/ AsiaNews)