ASEAN, APEC, EAS, ARF, SAARC, PIF, ASEAN+3, AEC, ASEM, CAEC, AEM, CAREC, SCO, PBEC, PECC, SPT. Is this a bad version of scrabble? Or a random jumble of unrelated letters?
No. In fact, these are just some of the many regional institutions which function within the Asia-Pacific region. It is no wonder that this jumble of institutions has been described as the ‘alphabet soup’ of regionalism.
The confusion does not stop with the acronyms. The institutions themselves form an overlapping structure which is designed to foster greater cooperation in this dynamic ever-changing region. (Though it is hard to imagine how this could be effective given the competition that exists between the groupings.)
The problem begins with how to define the region. Is it just the South-East Asian countries? Should East Asia be included? Should it be the Asia-Pacific? Is the United States included in Asia? And, what about the Indian subcontinent? Do you include Eurasia and the “-stan’s” (eg. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan)?
It all boils down to whether Asia should be defined in geographical, geopolitical or economic terms. And you may think that this is just semantics. But establishing this definition is important.
Even diagrams which are designed to simply the overlapping institutional web are confusing in themselves!
The choice of who to include profoundly affects the possible outcomes of the organisation. If you make the group too diverse then it may be impossible to reach any meaningful compromise. However, if you make it too narrow it ignores the broader regional problems and isn’t effective.
Take ASEAN for example.
The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed in 1967. Its five founding members were Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, but it has recently expanded to include Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
ASEAN formed in the aftermath of Indonesia’s Konfontasi against Malaysia, the overthrow of Indonesian President Sukarno and the subsequent rethinking of Indonesian policy towards the region. The members shared the belief that the greatest threat they faced was from foreign backed communist insurgency.
It provides a forum for dialogue between the member states and provides an opportunity for interstate and regional cooperation. ASEAN is characterised by its informal and consensus approach to decision making which arguably has decreased the productiveness of the organisation.
ASEAN has notably stuck by the non-intervention/non-interference model which places the up most respect for territorial integrity. This has come at the expense of the discussion of obvious human rights violations in member states.
Instead of simply adding further members to the ASEAN body – it has chosen to create a series of parallel groupings which occur on the side of ASEAN meetings. ASEAN+3 was created in 1997 following the Asian Financial Crisis and the calls for further integration with China, Japan, South Korea.
ASEAN+6, which was created in 2005 and renamed the East Asian Summit (EAS) further included Australia, India, New Zealand. Russia and the United States were formally invited to join in 2011.
If that wasn’t enough the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) has grown from its beginnings in 1994 to include 27 participants. It including not only all of the EAS members, but also Canada, the European Union, Papua New Guinea, North Korea, Mongolia, Pakistan, Timor-Leste, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The ARF’s mandate was much broader hence the inclusion of states not in Asia.
The very complicated structure of ASEAN and its institutional offshoots. For legend see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/ASEAN_member_states.svg
As Ba argues, many scholars believe that ASEAN and its offshoots (EAS,ARF) have limited policy coordination. Meaning they cannot coordinate a unified policy for the region. ASEAN is often characterised as a ‘talk shop’ and the ARF is seen as “all bark, no bite.”
And you must remember, this is only the groupings that stem off ASEAN. Many others exist which operate outside of the ASEAN framework.
One such organisation is APEC – Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation – which was created in 1989 by Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke to promote trans-pacific economic cooperation. It currently consists of 21 countries stretching across the Pacific to the United States. It holds annual meetings of the heads of state and is portrayed in the media through the conference photo with heads of state wearing the traditional dress of the host country.
APEC Heads of State at the 2007 meeting in Sydney posing for a photo in traditional Australian Driza-Bone jackets.
Which institution reigns supreme? Well, it depends on who you talk to. If you spoke to the Chinese, they would likely point to their Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which they created to deal with its central Asian neighbours. Whereas if you spoke to Indonesia it would be ASEAN. For the United States, it would be the ARF because they are included.
So what should we make of this ‘alphabet soup’ we call Asian regionalism?
Well, it is important to understand that many states in Asia actually prefer this complex web of institutions. After all, regional institutions were created to protect and strengthen existing nations and thus there is little desire build a broader regional framwork which would in many ways dilutes state identity and undermine sovereignty.
As Alagappa argues, any attempts to propose a larger regional security framework is often watered down, put in the too hard basket or labelled as a future goal.
The ‘alphabet soup’ then serves the purpose of enhancing the power of governments whilst not imposing the sort of supranational rules on state behaviour that would occur if a European Union style organisation was established in the region.
Whether it’s confusing or not, it appears that ‘alphabet soup’ is just the way they like it in the Asia-Pacific.
About the Author
