Page 37 - AEI Insights 2018 Vol 4 Issue 1
P. 37

Azman and Kumar, 2018



               considered as effective, considering that there are series of shocks that ASEAN had faced over
               the last three decades namely the 1988 Spratly Skirmish, the US’s controversial exercise of
               Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) and the failure to issue a joint communique during
               the 2012 ASEAN Ministerial Meeting.

               The second factor that might determine ASEAN principled-pragmatism is regional resilience
               and ruled-based focus. Resilience, in the straightforward term, refers to "the ability to resist
               sudden shocks and recover from them” (Fjader 2014:119). In the setting of regional grouping,
               there are three forms of society resilience that can be applied; first, “adaptation towards the
               maintenance of status quo, second, keeping the shock as marginal to safeguard the existing
               structures  or  policies  and  third,  ability  to  renew  and  transform  by  diversifying  multiple
               structures” (Fjader 2014: 121).

               For ASEAN, it is relatively presumable that the Association is currently at first level and the
               second level by looking at the stable security nature of regional status quo with its members
               actively committing to the grouping and how ASEAN has been managing series of threats
               while  engaging  with  great  powers.  The  regional  efforts  towards  building  a  more  resilient
               community can be seen in ASEAN Political-Security Blueprint by 2025 which focuses on
               rules-based community.

               In another perspective, ASEAN’s current rapid economic transformation is not just necessary
               to improve the ten countries' infrastructure development but also to fuel the growing appetite
               of external powers’ strategic political and economic interests.  The history has also shown that
               during the Second World War, the Southeast Asia region became the theatrical concourse for
               the world’s superpowers to fight for the golden land for natural resources like rubber and to
               assert political ideology and military superiority.  In this context, the construction of regional
               resilience should accentuate states' vulnerabilities and insecurities due to the visceral issues of
               socio-cultural, economic and geopolitical security that will always be the factors in the intra-
               states inter-state political environment (Christopherson et al. 2010:5).

               The third determinant factor to ASEAN's principled-pragmatism is the ‘we-feelings' identity.
               The ‘we-feelings' identity is essentially the manifestation of ASEAN's sense of belonging to
               one region, or notion of having shared destiny to produce a form of ownership and togetherness
               that lubricates the relationship between both people and the governments of ASEAN (Baba
               2016:95-97). Applying Constructivism to understand the idea of ‘we feelings’ in ASEAN, it
               can be interpreted through the idea of ‘mutual consciousness of identity'. Wendt explains that
               ‘mutual consciousness of identity emphasises on the "share destiny of others, define interests
               with regards to other states, and possibly will develop a sense of community" (Wendt 1994:
               386).

               Central  to  this  analysis  is  that  the  ‘we-feelings'  identity  also  favours  the  ASEAN  Way  of
               handling  conflicts  through  the  consensus-making  process  and  underscores  the  regional
               communitarian  aspects  where  “ideational  construction  to  create  a  new  state  identity  that
               enabled member-state to pursue its interest in ASEAN” on fundamental shared interests for
               maintenance of sovereignty and a similar vision of regionalism and regionalisation” (Acharya
               2014:25). This can be seen during the post-Cold War era where some of the Southeast Asia
               countries shared attachment in political and social beliefs in the form of status quo, cultural
               commonalities and historical experience despite the odds they faced.





                                                            37
   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42