1. An EU-like economic integration where there is zero tarriffs and almost no trade barriers plus free movement of peoples would not be good for the ASEAN if members like Burma continue to be grossly undeveloped. This is because it will result, in my opinion, to bigger countries sharing the burden of Burma or bigger countries getting to dominate Burma. Hence, I believe that good governance, addressing of human rights to prevent international sanction, is vital.

2. Yes, I already pointed out in this post that an EU-like political integration is not feasible in ASEAN for three reasons.

3. While sovereignty might remain to be an important value, I think that, at least, the ASEAN must have a mechanism to punish members who err with regards to human rights. Like in the form of, maybe, suspension or expulsion.

4. Sometimes, shared goal is indeed the bedrock of ASEAN’s leadership position and regional stance. But not always. In the Mischief reef incident, I doubt if it was in Burma or Cambodia’s interest to confront China. It was in the interest of the four claimant-states. And those four claimant states got leverage because of ASEAN. Now, if ASEAN is to be seen not as a solid bloc but rather a feeble talk shop in the coming years, I don’t think it would continue to enjoy its leverage.

:D

this is the asean charter:

http://www.aseansec.org/ASEAN-Charter.pdf

what a schizophrenic document! on the one hand, it wants to uphold sovereignty (principle a), while principle i says must respect fundamental freedoms.

geez… its seems to me that what you are saying (correct me if i am wrong please) that to move forward, the asean must reconcile the fundamental inconsistencies, in favor of protecting human rights?

while thats in principle OK, i don’t think we can expect asean to kick out states that don’t conform to all the agreed on principles.

to continue on my original query: why can’t we just rely on economic cooperation that is unconstrained by coordination on other issues?

second, about burma, at least we agree on the fact that FTAs don’t need coordination on human rights.

we also agree on the infeasibility of becoming as integrated as the EU.

if so, what kind of deep economic integration do you have in mind that, in your reply of (J on March 8th, 2009 6:24 pm) says is difficult to achieve given current realities?

–> about being a regional leader…

i’m even more confused here… i’m curious about your thinking here. you mentioned (and perhaps we agree) that if the member states agree on an intitiative (ie its a common interest), then it’ll happen.

specifically, if its their common interest to disagree with china on some initiative, or to propose something, it’ll happen.

now, if a north asia econ alliance is made, it’ll go thru the same roadblocks as asean. but once completed, it will also follow the same rules, i.e. if its on their common interest, they will show a united front.

so you seem to suggest that being a leader is an important goal in and of itself. i quote you:

“In fact, to some extent, the ASEAN’s leadership position in the Far East has been acknowledged …. The East Asia Summit, for instance, has been held under the auspices of the ASEAN. China, Japan and Korea has followed ASEAN’s leadership in the Chaing Mai Initiative that gave birth to a region-wide currency swap … In short, the ASEAN has given its members an added leverage in Asian regional geopolitics.”

but isn’t the power of being this ‘leader’ come from having shared goals (and shared goals alone)?

UP n grad: I know. That’s why I said it’s unlikely for ASEAN to go EU.

Timoteo: Last time I checked, Pakistan and North Korea are not part of the ASEAN.

Well sure, in some cases, human rights do not factor in competitiveness. But in the case of Myanmar, human rights violations have reached a point where, first, many governments have called for economic sanctions against the government and that, second, social friction have led to an environment where economic competitiveness is hindered.

Therefore, in the context of Burma, human rights do factor in economic competitveness.

While human rights is a question of national sovereignty, it should not be denied that by becoming a member of ASEAN, countries to the protection of human rights for it is one of the values espoused by the organization (as enshrined in the ASEAN Charter). If they want to keep sovereignty, nobody’s keeping them from leaving the ASEAN. In the same way, EU members should either give up capital punishment or leave the EU.

True, the Nyawpyitaw Regime, even if it’s illegitimate, should have more stake than the ASEAN in taking care of its people. But you should remember that it is the goal of the ASEAN to be “responsive to the needs of 570 million people of Southeast Asia.” I don’t know about you but I believe this means being helpful to those who struggle against abuses in Myanmar.

Finally, if ASEAN would remain to be a source of leverage for its members in Asian geopolitical power play (like standing up against china through political solidarity or taking other political initiatives), th ASEAN must at least show that it can, at the very least, influence its members.

thanks! interesting…

1) i was confused coz i didnt know human rights would be a factor in economic growth…

do you have any literature/links linking human rights and investment attractiveness or growth? names of authors and such?

i’ve heard of investment attractivesness and growth being affected by corruption, or lack of property rights by owners of capital.

aren’t some human rights abusing countries growing fast?

now its true that deep economic integration is usually among countries that are of the same level of development. Theoretically, its unclear whether its selection (those with the same level of development group together) or whether integration itself causes economic catchup.

however, it is always possible to have “less” deep integration between countries in terms of FTAs, ala ASEAN or say nafta.

i guess our argument is, if this is the ONLY kind of integration possible, do we still call it “relevant”.

my answer is yes.

2)ChangMai, etc… those are ECONOMIC regional initiatives, right?

if so, they will sign up if its in their economic best interest. if it isn’t, they will NOT sign up.

in other words, regional initiatives, IF and WHEN they exist, should reflect common interests and goals by the states…

human rights abuses are an issue on national sovereignty, are they not? i’m having trouble imagining them giving up national sovereignty to a collegial body on a regional initiative. i don’t think any country (in ANY integrated club ala EU) that would give up national sovereignty?

i guess, to ground this discussion, one may ask: are there examples of real world regional inititiatives that would allow member states to constrain another to act in ways it would normally would not act?

3) “Thirdly, if you are a Burmese, which kind of ASEAN is relevant to you? And ASEAN that addresses human rights or an ASEAN that’s toothless?”

great question!

this brings up back to the point about national sovereignty. the entity ‘responsible’ for an average burmese would be the burmese govt and the other burmese.

do we require ALL regional associations to address the economic concerns of ALL THE CITIZENS within each member country?

thats a tall order.

at the very least, we’d want these agreements to help national income grow, and then let redistribution (if any) be handled by national institutions.

do you have practical or philosophical disagreement here?

We are more politically complicated than them. They have no North Korea and Pakistan. We have two very
volatile political conflicts in our region: North
Korea and nuclear armed India and Pakistan.

That’s a laugh. S’pore compared itself to Kuwait in the 1990s causing Malaysia to consider turning off the tap. Indonesia was not amused with the comparison.

And where will the ASEAN version of Brussels or Strasbourg be? Singapore?, Manila?, KL?

“If these things are left unaddressed by the ASEAN, then there would be failures in two levels: first, the ASEAN won’t be able to close the economic development gap between the better off and the worst off, hence complicating full economic integration; and, second, the ASEAN would lose its credibility as a major player in the regional balance of power game in the Far East.”

:D :D

Right now, one thing that hinders full economic integration that’s really beneficial is the fact that there’s a big gap between the rich ASEAN (Singapore, Malaysia), the middle class ASEAN (Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam) and the poor ASEAN (Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Burma). The poor ones need to reform themselves so they could catch up. Which is where governance come in. Investors won’t come to a country that is hounded by unaddressed human rights issues.

Also, the ASEAN is known for its regional initiatives (Chang Mai Initiative, East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum). If ASEAN conitnue to be unable to at least prod its members to respect human rights, or to be able to address conflicts, then ASEAN’s credibility in taking regional inititiatives will be put in question.

Thirdly, if you are a Burmese, which kind of ASEAN is relevant to you? And ASEAN that addresses human rights or an ASEAN that’s toothless?

i dunno… its clear to me you WANT asean to have a larger role, its unclear why thats related to its future relevance.

for example, human rights… are you saying that if asean doesn’t involve itself in human rights it becomes irrelevant? why does it NEED to go beyond economic issues?

if yes, why?

what happens if it chooses to deal with non-economic issues? will people just forget about asean?

in other words, why is human rights (non-economic issues) crucial to the relevance of asean?

won’t it continue to be relevant (important) if it only restricts itself to resource/economic issues?