The Concept of ‘ASEAN Way’ in conducting Diplomacy
ASEAN Way is used in a political sense to denote the different style of diplomacy in so-called Asian multilateral settings. The concept is invoked to distinguish ASEAN diplomacy from Western understanding of conducting diplomacy and thereby enhance the unique characteristics of ASEAN. It is a claim about the process of regional interactions and cooperation based on discreteness, informality, consensus building and non-confrontational bargaining styles which are often contrasted with the adversarial posturing, majority vote and other legalistic decision-making procedures in Western multilateral negotiations. Having said, the relevance of the concept of “ASEAN Way” in conducting diplomacy among ASEAN member states can be summarised and best explained in two (2) major dimensions. First, in the principle of non-interference which was taken from its cultural background. Secondly, the principle of consensus which significantly retained the good diplomatic relation among ASEAN member states.
To begin with, the ASEAN way is the norms of inter-state relations or ‘ground rules of conduct’ that have been an important feature of ASEAN regionalism and at the top of how to conduct diplomatic relations. ASEAN Way’s principles of non-interference and consensus act as the bar that must be looked into in conducting diplomacy within. On the contrary, without these principles within the ‘ASEAN Way’ it will be challenging to succeed in any diplomatic approach since the Southeast Asian nations are deeply figured by it. It is at the same time, the key that separates ASEAN with other states or regional organizations and allows it to maintain regional peace and co-operation is its unique diplomatic engagement with its member states.
Katsumata (2003) purports the main elements of the process that consists of the principles of noninterference, non-use of force, quiet diplomacy and consensus approach. The ASEAN emphasized the norms such as the principle of non-interference to respect sovereignty because they really focused on stabilizing international relations by building confidence during the initial phase (Narine, 2004). Since each member country was in the process of state-building the ASEAN placed utmost value on the norm of respecting the sovereignty of states. It is arguably the most important element of the ASEAN Way. ASEAN members practiced this principle since the founding of the organization to ensure state sovereignty that serves as an expression of respect and equal standing for all member countries.
Indonesian Foreign Minister Malik remarked that the principle of non-interference is a ‘new framework of relations within our own region’. Clearly shows that this principle is significant factor in conducting regional diplomatic relations. Some ASEAN observers consider the principle of non-interference contributes to the effort in maintaining peace in the region. With this principle, countries have their sovereignty despite of the erratic behavior of one member of the government. Meaning to say, if a country plans to establish a diplomatic relation among the ASEAN member states, issues such as human right violation and human trafficking in a certain country are considered domestic issue must be regarded off limit from involvements. The principle protects each country from others meddling into the domestic affairs while maintaining cooperation and good relations with the neighboring countries. Unless the issue affects other countries then the impacted party has the right to stand for itself and interfere in the business. For example, environmental issues and forest burning in Indonesia impacted its closest neighbors, Singapore and Malaysia. And therefore, the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution was signed in 2002.
ASEAN is a community of equal power. There is no one single country in ASEAN with significantly more power than the rest. It is a type of norm that does not question the sovereignty of member countries in general. Moreover, historically, the non-interference principle was deeply rooted and were found in discourse before the early 1990s. For example, the principle of non-interference has been positioned as an important norm in ASEAN agreement documents and discourses. It was in the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration issued at the AMM in 1971 that the expression ‘non-interference in affairs of States’ first appeared in an agreement and the principle of non-interference was positioned as an important concept for the ASEAN. Since then, non-interference has been recognized and promoted as an indispensable norm (ASEAN Secretariat, 1987, p. 195).
Secondly, General Ali Moertopo of Indonesia, in 1974, identified ‘the system of consultations’ among the ASEAN member states as contributing to the success of the organization. At the same track, Solidum (2007), asserted that the ASEAN Way consists of cultural elements which are found to be congruent with some values of each of the member states. It is usually described as a decision-making process that features a high degree of consultation and consensus. As stated, it establishes the pillar for the overview of a diplomatic relations among ASEAN member states.
Idealists view countries and global structure as a “community with the potential to work together to overcome mutual problems.” Idealism or liberalism theory founded the decision-making process in ASEAN since the aim of ASEAN Way is to reach consensus with the common understanding that each country has equal power. The balance of power and the cultural setting in ASEAN create conducive environment that allows the organization to pursue idealist purpose of the organization. The proponents of ASEAN Way argue that this decision-making process helps the member countries to respect each other and produces peace in the region. It is a decision-making process that emphasizes on discussion and consensus. It stresses on members equality and the importance of cooperation despite extensive length of time required for discussion to reach an agreement.
Considering the argument that the ASEAN Way is born out of the local Asian culture such as the decision-making process in the Malay villages or Indonesian country sides termed as mufakat (consensus) and musyawarah (consultation) which emphasizes strongly on collective culture that includes the process of decision-making. The decision-making process is an extension of cultural sense to avoid hurting other people’s feeling, to give face and to avoid open conflict. It can be seen in most of the diplomatic agreements among the Southeast Asian nations that they conform with this very principle of decision-making or the so-called consensus like the fact that every country has their own veto power on deciding for such issues or agreements. ASEAN Way style of decision making is a necessity to create the basic sense of community as the foundational element for cooperation.
This consensus-driven, non-confrontational model of decision-making allows countries to opt out of (or delay participating in) any initiative. Similarly, Consensus is the language of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) diplomacy. It has the adaptive power to place actors in the dynamics of domestic and international political games and to generate meaningful relations and social perceptions which in turn become the basis upon which norms evolve either into greater sophistication or give way to new ones.
ASEAN owes much of its success to the so-called “ASEAN Way”, a form of regional cooperation that puts national sovereignty and self-interest first.
To sum up, it can be justified that the concept of ‘ASEAN Way’ is relevant in conducting diplomacy among ASEAN member states in the spheres of the principle of non-interference and consensus which significantly retained the good diplomatic relation among ASEAN member states. Diplomatic plans won’t be prioritized of the subject state if these two major principles of ASEAN Way were absent. It clarifies that ASEAN Way as a unique approach toward diplomatic relations is effective without undermining the rights and norms of Southeast Asian nations. Considering the aforementioned statements, Western way of diplomatic relations is not the only way to succeed in intergovernmental diplomacies, instead, it helps in the improvement of the far existing ASEAN Way of this region of the world.
References:
KATSUMATA, H. (2003). Reconstruction of Diplomatic Norms in Southeast Asia: The Case for Strict Adherence to the “ASEAN Way”(2020). Contemporary Southeast Asia, 25(1), 104–121. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25798630
Narine, Shaun. (2005). State Sovereignty, Political Legitimacy and Regional Institutionalism in the Asia-Pacific. The Pacific Review. 17. 423–450. 10.1080/0551274042000261524.
The “ASEAN Way”. (2007). In The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon (Upated 2nd Edition) (pp. 9–20). ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.
