And so 2008 begins...

"I am not afraid of tomorrow, for I have seen yesterday and I love today."

William Allen White

The ASEAN Charter

A couple of weeks ago news came that ASEAN had signed a charter. I found that was an interesting development, and it reminded me of a research paper a group of mine wrote for our COM 101 course back in the Fall of 2005. Thought I should just put it up if anyone would find it of any interest.

Introduction

Friendship has been the subject of much observation and study over the ages, and Aristotle’s model is “the classic one, more widely known and more widely followed than any other” (Toner, 2003, p. 217). Aristotle described how there exists 3 kinds of friendships, namely “virtue, pleasure, and utility” (Toner, 2003, p.217), and that individuals form friendships because of mutual admiration and genuine care, the enjoyment of one another’s company, and for the benefits of association; each of these reasons outline the 3 listed kinds of friendship respectively. So as we can see from Aristotle’s conclusions, individuals hold varying reasons of why they form friendships with the various people in their lives.

Nations, similar to individuals, also form friendships, though their reasons are more likely driven by political, economic and social interests. Furthermore, nations also form groups of friends like people do, though in a different manner. Instead of the rather informal ways in which individual friends form groups, nations must go about forming international organizations with clearly written goals, principles and procedures. Such organizations usually are aimed at facilitating discussion of issues that affect member nations, and possibly agreeing on a method to deal with those issues. If we were to look at the United Nations, one of its aims is to “prevent disputes from escalating into war, to persuade opposing parties to use the conference table rather than force of arms, or to help restore peace when conflict does break out” (www.un.org), and tries to do so through the United Nations Security Council.

The most prominent group of nations in this region is the Association of South East Asian Nations, also known as ASEAN. It was established on August 8, 1967, when foreign ministers of five countries-Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand met at the Thai Department of Foreign Affairs building in Bangkok and signed the ASEAN Declaration, which is also known as the Bangkok Declaration. The founding members envisaged that the organization would eventually encompass all countries in Southeast Asia. Brunei Darussalam became the sixth member when it joined on January 7, 1984, Vietnam the seventh on July 28, 1995, Laos and Myanmar joined two years later on July 23, 1997, and eventually Cambodia on April 30, 1999. ASEAN's aims and purposes were about cooperation in the economic, social, cultural, technical, and educational fields, among others, and in the promotion of regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia, signed at the First ASEAN Summit on 24 February 1976 states the fundamental principles of the regional grouping:

Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations; The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion; Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner; Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and Effective cooperation among themselves (www.aseansec.org).

Having established that friendships can occur not only on a personal level but also between nations, and that these nations can come together to enhance those friendships by forming groups, it is therefore our objective to make an analysis of ASEAN and determine if they not only fulfil the criteria of what is considered a group, but also to discuss if they have met the requirements for having a friendship that is capable of lasting through the strains of the problems that they face. It is important to note that we are not interested in which stage of friendship ASEAN may be at now, since international politics is dynamic and ever-changing, friendships are constantly on the move, whether they be improving or deteriorating, thus we are more interested in the current means with which this group friendship is maintained and what problems they are encountering. Beyond that, if we discover that they fall short of the standards for group friendship, then we shall propose a means through which these short-comings can be rectified; we do not wish to suggest that a perfect condition for both group establishment and friendship can be made, but that there is a situation that can be better than what is currently in existence.

ASEAN as a group

As ASEAN is a group of nations, our first point of analysis is if they possess the 4 characteristics of a group; being “interaction, interdependence, shared behavioural standards, and collective identity” (Trenholm, 2005, p.176). If we were to look at ASEAN, and its fulfilment of these characteristics, we see no major problems. Through periodic meetings, like the annual ASEAN Summit and ASEAN Ministerial Meetings, they interact and communicate. Their stated goals, like economic prosperity and cultural understanding, create interdependence as these can only be achieved through collective effort and cooperation. Their fundamental principles, as outlined in TAC, establish shared behavioural standards, as it describes the unique way in which must ASEAN operate. Finally, collective identity is seen when they use language like “(w)e in ASEAN have created a community of Southeast Asian nations at peace with one another and at peace with the world” (ASEAN Vision 2020, 1997), and “ASEAN Member Countries express their solidarity with Indonesia and commit themselves to further intensify cooperation among them to eradicate the threat of terror in the region and beyond” (ASEAN, press release, October 2, 2004). These extracts from declarations and press releases, indicate how ASEAN communicates not as individual nations, but rather through a single voice, clearly indicating their willingness to be regarded as one.

Therefore one may be led to believe that ASEAN should not have any problems in maintaining group cohesion and harmony. That is however not the case. We will explore these problems in the form of Myanmar’s ASEAN membership, and the regional drug problem.

When Myanmar was admitted into the group, it portrayed ASEAN in a very poor light. The Myanmar government, run by the State of Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), was well known of systematically targeting political opponents and ethnic minorities, creating regional instability by causing refugees to flee and subjecting its citizens to forced labour under inhumane conditions (The BurmaNet News, July 22, 1997). These acts of political oppression and violation of human rights were viewed as a direct contradiction of the fact that ASEAN’s aim is to promote peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law and through the adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter. Even to this day Myanmar continues to flout the basic care it should show to its citizens, regional stability, and building of a positive regional image. As long as ASEAN does not effectively deal with this wayward member, it will continue to suffer the ill-effects, like international criticism, poor commercial image, and thus hinder the attainment of its set goals; this will be difficult though as they, by policy, cannot interfere in the domestic affairs of member nations.

Another rising problem is the trafficking and abuse of synthetic drugs in ASEAN. As it is a transnational crime, meaning that it occurs across several territorial borders, once drug trafficking occurs outside one nation’s respective borders, it becomes difficult to combat the movement of drugs even though it may be easier to combat drug abuse in one’s own homeland. Furthermore, if countries such as Myanmar, Laos and Thailand are the major drug producers and suppliers (TODAY Newpaper, September 28, 2005), the root of the problem cannot be tackled, again due to ASEAN’s non-interventionist policy; essentially it would make the task of reducing demand much simpler, if supply were to be cut-off, or at the very least heavily reduced. There are signs of hope though; ASEAN has decided to come up with steps to counter this problem at the opening of the 26th meeting of ASEAN Senior Officials on Drug Matters, when senior law enforcement and narcotics officers met to discuss a regional anti-drug policy and means to build cooperation among member nations (The Straits Times, September 28, 2005).

It is clear from what we have seen that ASEAN has encountered difficulty in ensuring that the activities of its members do not cause harm, usually to its image, thus carrying possible damage to investor confidence in the region. Therefore the greatest risk to group cohesion and harmony are the actions, or failure to take action of a select few.

ASEAN as a lasting friendship

Our second point of analysis will be focused on whether or not ASEAN has established itself well enough to have built a bond of friendship that will be able to withstand the strain of the problems the region faces. In his book Love and Friendship, Jules J. Toner (2003) describes what he calls “Personal Friendship: Its Essential Features” (p.225), and goes on to explore his eight features: “mutual personal love, mutually congenial personalities, common interests, communion of personal love, sharing lives, mutual commitment, belief and trust in each other’s commitment, and virtue of friendship” (p.226-238). To facilitate our analysis, we will combine and realign these essentials so that they are more suitable for the consideration of ASEAN; we will therefore now have 4 essentials of friendships between nations.

As “mutual personal love” refers to the shared feeling of care and concern, and “communion of personal love” describes the acknowledgement of such reciprocal love, our first essential shall be: The understanding and acknowledgement of one another’s position and feelings towards a particular issue. What is important in this, is the opportunity to interact and discuss matters; thus through the various ministerial meetings, we see several chances for ASEAN members to declare their positions, and clarify those of others. Evidence of such mutual sensitivity can be seen when Myanmar decided not to take up the chairmanship of ASEAN for 2006, after the United States and European Union threatened not to attend ASEAN meetings if they did so; this was on account of Myanmar’s poor track record with democracy and human rights. This solution allowed ASEAN to prevent a worsening of ties with the West, to avoid giving in to the demands of external parties, and allowed Myanmar to use the pretext of wanting more time to further their reforms on democracy before taking the chairmanship; whether or not this will actually materialize is yet to be seen, but for them to have acted in ASEAN’s best interests is a clear indication that at times member states know that the course of action taken should be in due consideration for the well being of the whole group, though it may have been more motivated by the fact that the government of Myanmar wished to avoid its fellow ASEAN members feeling disappointed at them for the United States and European Union pulling out of the ASEAN meetings.

The second essential is taken from “mutually congenial personalities”, which establishes that friends should have personalities that place another at ease. This is an obvious impossibility as governments of certain nations can change due to elections or through other means, and therefore the personality of leadership is ever-changing. Our second essential is then: The establishment of equality of all member states. While this does not guarantee that each and every nation will like another, at the very least it allows for each of them to feel that none are greater than the other; averting the possibility of resentment due to a perceived unfairness. This current state of equality does exist in the form of their fundamental principles, namely “mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations”. There has yet to be an incident in which a member state was treated as a second class member, this is because ASEAN well understands that their strength lies in their solidarity.

The third essential is constructed from “common interests, sharing lives and mutual commitment”, each respective idea can be described by having an activity or goal each party would like done, being an important part of one another’s lives, and a joint pledge to the friendship. From this we find that our third essential is: Having mutually beneficial goals and aims, announced through a united declaration, which brings about greater interdependence. We see this behavior in the ASEAN Vision 2020 made in 1997, which sets out the dedication to the continued development of the region, with clear goals marked for the year 2020, and its announcement through a joint declaration including all member states.

The final essential composes of “belief and trust in each other’s commitment, and virtue of friendship”. These describe how each person must have and believe in the genuine loyalty of one another, while virtue is a characteristic that points out the ability of the friendship to exist regardless of the surrounding conditions. Therefore our final essential is: Ensuring commitment and dedication to achieve lasting solidarity. While ASEAN member nations have generally promised to meet their obligations, the fulfillment of such pledges is dependant on each individual nation’s willingness to take real action. With issues like Myanmar’s reluctance to change their attitudes towards the governance of their nation, Indonesia’s failure to contain the haze problem, and lack of effort to combat drug trafficking across the borders of Myanmar, Laos and Thailand; it is clear that at times a pledge of action is only as valuable as the actual execution of action.

In general ASEAN has fulfilled the essentials of lasting friendships amongst its member states, with the exception of ensuring commitment and dedication to achieve lasting solidarity. Though missing the final essential component may ultimately harm ASEAN, as there is no point setting about well-intentioned aims and goals, if members do not make a concrete effort to see them come about.

Conclusion

From our analysis ASEAN has generally been able to achieve the 4 characteristics of a group, and the 4 essentials of friendship. However, we have seen several examples of the kinds of problems ASEAN faces. For example, Myanmar’s poor governance and the persistent struggle with regional drug trafficking. Theoretically speaking, as a group of friends, ASEAN should not be having such erratic difficulties in their functioning. We have seen them set intelligent and logical goals and aims for progress, with unified undertaking in their accomplishment, yet there is something that is continuing to inhibit them from doing so effectively.

By comparing ASEAN to a group of individual friends, perhaps we can identify where this disruption stems from. When a group of friends desires to accomplish something or to overcome a problem, they may go through the steps of “Standard Agenda” (Trenholm, 2005, p.197), which in short outlines how a group goes about identifying a problem, coming up with a viable solution, and then implementing it. While ASEAN goes through this process during its meetings and summits, there is one major distinction between them and a group of individual friends; there is no rule denying the ability for the members to critique one another. The significance of commenting on one another’s actions can be invaluable when a group is working together, even when they are friends; it allows each person to act as a check-and-balance to the activities of others, often providing important feedback and suggestions for ways to improve what the other person is doing.

ASEAN’s predicament could then be identified as its policy of non-intervention and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other members; the weakness of this policy is that it conflicts with the function of effective cooperation, as one inhibits the practice of the other. Essentially, it can be very difficult to cooperate effectively when you cannot act, let alone comment on the internal affairs of another member. Mutual critique is a powerful tool for progress and action, but if it is restricted or disallowed, than its usefulness is severely reduced or removed all together. In order for ASEAN to properly function, its members need the ability to warn each other about their behaviour; this is especially important as the level of interdependency increases, as the implications of one nations behaviour will be felt with greater impact, and by more members as time passes.

In response to this, ASEAN should establish a charter; a legally binding document which clearly states the purpose of the group, its basic principles, the roles of its various institutions, and the rights as well as duties of member states. Through the charter, members of ASEAN would be compelled to act in a certain manner, but with its creation must come the careful consideration of its content; realigning ASEAN’s behavioural standards would allow it to better deal with the current challenges it faces. Therefore, we would recommend that ASEAN should include 2 new principles, inclusive of the others currently in existence, except the policy of non-intervention and non-interference. Firstly, open communication towards one another’s internal affairs would be far more constructive than having to carefully manoeuvre around and sometimes avoid discussing particular issues. Secondly, selective intervention would give ASEAN the ability to discipline any wayward members that are acting against the best interests of the group. By having these we remove the problem of having shared behavioural standards that are in conflict, as each member will better understand that any actions that violate their responsibilities towards the group will be punished or condemned; creating a stricter environment to achieving the common vision, unlike now where certain members continuously behave, intended or not, in a harmful manner towards the group.

It could be argued however, that by taking this approach, ASEAN runs the risk of creating divisions amongst its members; as some may feel that others have no business in their own personal matters, or that some nations may possibly feel victimized as they may come under constant scrutiny. But as ASEAN grows more interdependent, members will realise how by joining ASEAN, personal matters intrinsically become matters of the group. As for the sense of being victimized, if each member is deemed equal by the charter, and that all have similar obligations, then everyone would be open to comment and discussions about themselves, thus it is not aimed at any particular few.

Through this initiative, not only does ASEAN fix the flaw within the group’s shared behavioural standards, but also bring about an improved environment for ensuring commitment and dedication to achieve lasting solidarity, which is the essential of friendship we found them lacking in; this is gained by allowing members to ensure that each of them stay true to their pledge of working towards ASEAN’s goals and aims, thus strengthening the feeling of unity by consistent positive actions of all involved.

References

The Association of South East Asian Nations. (2005, 2 October) “ASEAN Strongly Condemns Terrorist Attacks in Bali, Indonesia” Statement by the 39th Chair of the ASC.

Hostname: aseansec.org

Directory: www.aseansec.org/17810.htm

The Association of South East Asian Nations. (1997, 15 December) ASEAN Vision 2020.

Hostname: aseansec.org

Directory: www.aseansec.org/1814.htm

The Association of South East Asian Nations. Overview – Fundamental Principles.

Hostname: aseansec.org

Directory: www.aseansec.org/64.htm

The BurmaNet News. (1997, July 22). Amnesty Says Rights Abuses Continuing.

Hostname: burmalibrary.org

Directory: www.burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199707/msg00354.html

The Straits Times. (2005, September 28). ASEAN nations urged to jointly act against drugs.

The United Nations. International Peace and Security.

Hostname: un.org

Directory: www.un.org/aboutun/basicfacts/peacesec.htm

TODAY Newspaper. (2005, September 28). ASEAN nations join hands to fight problem of synthetic drugs.

Toner, J. (Jules.). (2003). Love and Friendship. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.

Trenholm, Sarah. (2005). Thinking Through Communication (4^th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Here to stay!

Well, I've been giving careful consideration as to whether or not I should close this blog and remove it's content... Ultimately I don't think I will, so to kick start things, here we go!

So recently I saw the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs interview on youtube, it was awesome stuff. I've consolidated all the clips into a single playlist, and all the videos are below. Enjoy!



Alternatively, if you prefer, here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C0315A5C238809F7

I sent the link to a friend, and he gave me this terrific website in return! The gift economy in action I suppose... TED stands for Technology Entertainment Design. It is a conference where leading thinkers, professionals, and academics come to present their ideas. There are some truly great videos, and the best part is you can download them at no charge!

http://www.ted.com/index.php/

This is why I decided not to close my blog. The ability to share information is a powerful tool, I think it would be silly of me to just let that drop by the side.