Oct 20 2005
Book Review: International Relations in Southeast Asia, by Donald E. Weatherbee, at el.
Book Review: International Relations in Southeast Asia, by Donald E. Weatherbee, at el.
Weatherbee’s book is an in-depth study of international relations in Southeast Asia. The discussions on “neorealist” subjects in the book resemble those in Yahuda’s book, but with greatly enriched materials. However, it is the “nontraditional” topics, such as terrorism, cross-border crimes, environmental and human rights, that really give the book a fresh new look.
Like Michael Yahuda, Weatherbee identifies Southeast Asia with strong sentiment of regionalism. However, in his criticism of the “neoliberalist” rationale (p18), he laid a theoretical foundation questioning the validity of such sentiment. In his view, the diversities among Southeast Asian countries are so profound that they become “potent divisive, not unifying, forces” (p15). As a result, he argues, regional identity is weak and a far less significant factor in understanding Southeast Asian politics (p15).
Since ASEAN has been the symbol of Southeast Asian regionalism, its institutional persona, or lack thereof, is extensively discussed throughout the book. According to Weatherbee:
1. As an international institution, ASEAN lacks any substantial power or authority.
2. ASEAN was ineffective in solving intra-regional conflicts. So much so that some members bypassed it altogether when settling bilateral issues (p131).
3. As an organization, ASEAN is massively bureaucratic and inefficient.
Those deficiencies, Weatherbee points out, are signs that member countries lack political will to sacrifice for the collective good. The paucity of such will reflects the absence of shared values, which in turn is a legacy of the diversities in the region. ASEAN, he argues, has never been an “organic” institution. It was conceived, created and imposed upon international conscience by the ruling elites.
Weatherbee’s views on individual Southeast Asian countries are similarly critical. In his portrait, many governments’ dealings with their neighbors are as unilateral and bullying as some (reciprocally protested) U.S. policies. In addition, Southeast Asian countries’ tolerance toward human rights abuse, epitomized by the prospect of a Myanmar chairmanship, is deeply troubling to the author .
Given the current state of ASEAN and what it has achieved since its inception, it is hard not to agree with many of Weatherbee’s contentions. Yet, important questions remain: The first and foremost is, if the bounding of member nations is so weak and the organization so dysfunctional, then what keeps ASEAN live and running today? After all, the organization has been recently expanded and, despite having its former oppressor, Indonesia, sitting at the head of the table, East Timor is still trying to join in.
To answer this question, one has to bring in some perspective in evaluating “regional identity” or “regionalism”. Despite their cultural proximity, Northeast Asia is nowhere near to forming a regional organization. In other regions where there are comparable institutions, such as Arab League, African Union or OAS, the state-institution dynamics are not categorically different from those in Southeast Asia. The authors may implicitly hold EU and NATO as models for regional (plus one) cooperation. This is arguably true but not without exceptions: given the legacy of NATO alliance, disputes like the one between Turkey and Cyprus still have to be mediated by outsiders. More prominently, the collective inaptitude during the early Balkan conflict exposed serious limitations of EC and NATO. Weatherbee questioned whether expanding ASEAN by including Indochina countries was necessarily a good thing (p91). Now similar question is being asked inside European Union too, if not with more salient uncertainty.
In the end, one may have to ask if there is really a Platonic “regionalism”? In other words, is Southeast Asian brand of regionalism an exception or the rule? The authors have built a convincing case against using ASEAN as a fully representative model for regional study. But in their drive to achieve this goal, they may have inadvertently discounted the inherent difficulties of any international cooperation.