Betwixt balance and community: America, ASEAN, and the security of Southeast Asia

Realist scholars have long claimed, not incorrectly, that aUS-led balance of power is fundamental to the security and prosperityof Southeast Asia. Yet the Southeast Asian experience has alsobeen one where multilateral security dialogue and regional communityformation figure prominently. In contrast to views which exaggeratethe importance of US preponderance in Southeast Asia whilstdismissing regional multilateral efforts, we offer seven argumentsagainst any undue overstatement of the US contribution to regionalpeace and stability. If anything, a historically ambivalentUS presence contributed to ASEAN's emergence as a mechanismof regional diplomacy. Such ambivalence is no longer feasiblesince 9/11. However, Washington's current engagement in SoutheastAsia should focus on revitalizing regional multilateralism.Our claim is not that the region's security is due to ASEANregionalism rather than US strategic dominance. We argue insteadthat absent the region's fluency with ‘soft’ multilateralism,Southeast Asia's security would probably have been far worse.

SoutheastAsians are more acutely aware of the uncertainties of U.S. policiesthan other regions of the world. They remember the Americanretrenchment in the 1970s followed by a decade of self-doubt.Hence ASEAN countries drew towards each other to seek greaterstrength in self-reliance. They found that together in ASEAN,they could better overcome their problems; but they still needthe United States to balance the strength of the Soviet shipsand aircraft. The renewal of self-confidence in America hasreassured us that America will help maintain the peace and stabilityof the region. It is this balance of power which has enabledthe free market economies to thrive. – Lee Kuan Yew¹

     

Conclusion: On the possibility of a non-Western IR theory in Asia

In the conclusion, we seek to ascertain the possibility of anon-Western International Relations theory (IRT) in Asia. Wefind while there is a good deal of writing that can be regardedas ‘pre-theoretical’, these have not been fullyexploited or exported to other parts of Asia and beyond. Thereis certainly little that can be called an Asian IRT. This isnot because scholars in the region accept that Western IRT isunchallengeable nor that it has found all the answers to themajor problems of international relations. Nor is it becausenon-Western theories are ‘hidden from the public eye’.It is rather due to a lack of institutional resources, the head-startof Western IRT, and especially the hegemonic standing of WesternIRT. At the same time, the case studies point to the existenceof abundant intellectual and historical resources that couldserve as the basis of developing a non-Western IRT that takesinto account the positions, needs and cultures of countriesin the region. There is room in Asia for the development ofnon-Western IRT, but not an ‘Asian School of internationalrelations’ (although national perspectives such as a ‘ChineseSchool’ are possible) which would assume a degree of convergenceof perspectives and interactions among Asian scholars, whichclearly does not exist. This development should and could gobeyond simply ‘joining in to the existing game seekingto add local colour and cases to existing theory’, ordeveloping a localist exceptionalism (‘Asian values’)or organizing local thinking into rebellions against prevailingorthodoxies (especially realism and liberalism) in the mannerof the dependencia theory. Western IRT does not need to be replaced,but can and should be enriched with the addition of more voicesand a wider rooting not just in world history but also in informedrepresentations of both core and periphery perspectives withinthe ever-evolving global political, economic and social order. In the conclusion, we first offer some generalizations fromthe four case studies with a view to addressing the main questionposed in the introduction: the apparent absence of IRT in Asiaand possible explanations behind it. We then reflect on whetherthe question of a non-Western IRT in Asia is a meaningful one,and whether the way it is approached in this special issue couldresult in a productive debate that would advance the disciplineof IR. Although our empirical focus is on Asia, we suggest someinsights that have more general relevance for non-Western IRT. Received for publication May 16, 2006. Accepted for publication June 27, 2007.     

The use of an identity to examine the association between technological changes and aggregate labour utilization in agriculture

The purpose of this article is to examine certain aspects of the interaction between changes in agricultural technology and changes in the aggregate level of labour utilization in agriculture. The first part of the article describes an identity which establishes a relationship between the average output per person in agriculture, the size of the agricultural labour force in relation to the area under cultivation, and the average yield per acre of cultivated land. It also suggests that changes in each of the two latter parts of the identity can be associated with a particular form of technological change. The second part presents the Japanese, Taiwanese and Mexican experiences of agricultural growth in terms of the identity, with supporting data on the nature of the technological changes that have occurred. The final part begins with a summary of the experience of the three countries. Thereafter, it suggests that, in view of the high rate of growth of the labour force in developing countries, there should be a greater appreciation of the ways in which government policies may influence the direction of technological changes and of the possible implications of these changes on aggregate levels of labour utilization in agriculture.

The approach to assessing the impact of technological change that is incorporated in this paper differs in two respects from the approaches of standard literature on the subject (3, pp. 88–101; 4, pp. 709–29; 1, pp. 312–20). ? In the first place, it involves an explicit though partial explanation of the phenomenon rather than an emphasis on measuring its effect. Each of the two forms of technological change—land‐saving and labour‐saving—is identified as the introduction of particular new resources. A more complete explanation would require an additional hypothesis as to why individual entrepreneurs might want to innovate (that is, to introduce new resources); no such hypothesis is included in this study. In the second place, the suggested approach does not require the specification of a production function. The use of an identity has the advantage of allowing useful insights into the process of technological change while avoiding the analytical biases that can be introduced in specifying a production function.     

Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia

This article explores the impact of democratic transitions in Southeast Asia on regional co-operation, and the relationship between this process and the development of a non-official regionalism. Until now, regionalism in Southeast Asia has been essentially elite-centred and politically illiberal. The emergence of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was founded upon the common desire of its members, which had by then retreated significantly from their postcolonial experiments in liberal democracy, to ensure regime survival. This orientation was further institutionalised by asean 's doctrine of non-interference, which helped to shield its members from outside pressures towards democratisation. But with democratisation in the Philippines, Thailand and more recently Indonesia, the asean model of elite-centric regional socialisation has been challenged. The civil society in the region demands greater openness in Southeast Asian regionalism. The article proposes a conceptual framework for analysing the relationship between democratisation and regionalism, with the key argument being that the displacement of traditional patterns of regional elite socialisation has been offset by potential gains such as advances in regional conflict management, transparency and rule-based interactions. But the realisation of a more 'participatory regionalism' in Southeast Asia faces a number of barriers, including obstacles to further democratisation, the continued salience of the non-interference doctrine and the diminished space for civil society in the wake of the 11 September terrorist attacks.     

Ideas,identity, and institution‐building: From the ‘ASEAN way’ to the ‘Asia‐Pacific way'?

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which the development of multilateral institutions in the Asia‐Pacific region may be viewed as an exercise in identity‐building. It argues that institution‐building in this region is more of a ‘process‐orientated’ phenomenon, rather than simply being an outcome of structural changes in the international system (such as the decline of American hegemony). The process combines universal principles of multilateralism with some of the relatively distinct modes of socialization prevailing in the region. Crucial to the process have been the adaptation of four ideas: ‘cooperative security’, ‘open regionalism’, ‘soft regionalism’, and ‘flexible consensus’. The construction of a regional identity, which may be termed the ‘Asia‐Pacific Way’ has also been facilitated by the avoidance of institutional grand designs and the adoption of a consensual and cautious approach extrapolated from the ‘ASEAN Way’. The final section of the article examines the limitations and dangers of the Asia‐Pacific Way. It concludes with the assertion that while the Asia‐Pacific Way is an over‐generalised, instrumental, and pragmatic approach to regional cooperation, and there remain significant barriers to the development of a collective regional identity that is constitutive of the interests of the actors, it has helped introduce the concept and practice of multilateralism into a previously sceptical region and might have ‘bought’ enough time and space for regional actors to adapt to the demands of multilateralism.     

CHOGM 2018: A Right Royal Affair

The 2018 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) was eventful and significant for the Commonwealth and for the host country, the UK. It witnessed an unprecedented rolling out of royalty and royal residences and secured the succession of Prince Charles as the next head of the Commonwealth. It provided the UK with an opportunity to consolidate a traditional old constituency at a time when Brexit is looming large and creating serious uncertainty. A number of significant decisions were taken across the policy agenda and a High Level Review Group on the governance of the Commonwealth Secretariat, set up at the previous CHOGM but unable to complete its work in time, was re-energised and given an expanded mandate. This article notes that the reforms will be important, but questions whether they will be enough to keep the Commonwealth relevant and effective in the face of new global challenges.     

Arguing about ASEAN: what do we disagree about?

This article argues that ASEAN has been, will remain, an essentially contested institution. No one has claimed, or could claim, that ASEAN is a flawless organization, but at the same time, the characterization of ASEAN as a dysfunctional entity or a talk shop is misplaced. The reality lies in taking the middle ground as the articles in this special issue show. Research and debate on ASEAN should be based on comparing its record with other regional associations in the developing world and using some agreed criteria about what success or failure means. And disagreements about ASEAN's role should be welcomed as part of a healthy debate.