ASA and ASEAN, 1961-1967: Southeast Asian Regionalism

Asian Survey ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent K. Pollard
2019 ◽  
Vol SEAA19 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-20
Author(s):  
Leszek Buszynski ◽  

Asian Survey ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent K. Pollard

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Sue Thompson

Policy objectives for Southeast Asian regionalism had been evolving since the end of the Second World War.  Economic development viewed as essential for establishing peace and stability in Southeast Asia and the links between development and security were evident in the elaboration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).  Also evident was the second-line support provided by external powers.  While ASEAN was a regional initiative that came out of the Bangkok talks to end Confrontation, Western governments had been formulating regional cooperation policies in Southeast Asia decades prior.  Economic development viewed as essential for containing communist influence and preventing internal insurgencies in the region.  Growth and prosperity would come through regional development programs with external support.  This would then expand to some form of collective security led by the Southeast Asian nations themselves.  Regionalism viewed as one way of providing economic assistance to newly independent nations without the appearance of foreign interference in regional affairs.  Therefore, the evolution of Southeast Asian regionalism was a combined effort of foreign power support for Asian initiatives throughout the economic development with the aim to provide security during the political transformation of the region from the post-war period into the early years of ASEAN and the aftermath of the war in Vietnam.


Author(s):  
Jürgen Rüland

This book challenges the proposition that regional organizations across the world exhibit increasing similarities with the European Union as a result of norm diffusion. It examines how and to what extent Indonesian foreign policy stakeholders—the government, civil society, legislators, the academe, the press and business representatives—sought to influence reforms of Southeast Asian regionalism by adopting ideas and norms of regional integration championed by the EU. Triggering the Indonesian debate on regionalism was the decision of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Indonesia is a founding member, to draft an ASEAN Charter, a quasi-constitutional document adjusting the grouping’s repository of cooperation norms to a changing international environment. Applying and developing further Amitav Acharya’s theory of “constitutive localization,” the analysis of the ASEAN Charter debate shows that—to varying degrees—Indonesian foreign policy stakeholders transfer the terminology of European integration to ASEAN’s organizational structure, but that they adopt only partially, if at all, the normative substance of the EU model for regional integration. Instead, they skillfully reconcile alien norms with local norms, with the effect of retaining what could be called an Indonesian way of foreign policy-making.


2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gürol Baba

In the last two decades, most of the IR academia's attention on Southeast Asian regionalism utilised constructivism and/or realism and has focused on ASEAN and its derivatives. This article aims to skew this angle by elaborating a possible relationship between Asian values and a normative understanding of Southeast Asian identity. The major reason for this article's focus on a normative interpretation is that a practical application of Southeast Asian identity is not very achievable due to various ethnic, cultural, political, territorial, and historical diversities. While the region is diverse, there are also a number of commonalities among its states. Asian values, from a Confucian perspective, account for some of these commonalities. By using constructivists’ claims on both the links between norms and identity and the dynamic interaction between values and norms, this article argues that Asian values could contribute to the development of Amitav Acharya's widely cited normative/ideational format of Southeast Asian identity. The article takes ASEAN identity as a case study and aims to show why a normative identity is more achievable than a practical identity among Southeast Asians, and how Asian values might contribute to the creation of this shared identity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document