Page 46 - AEI Insights 2018 Vol 4 Issue 1

AEI Insights, Vol 4, Issue 1, 2018

Regarding the economic factor, the article put forward the core assumption that ASEAN
principled-pragmatism in SCS is largely determined by the threat perception and regional
resilience due to the ASEAN countries' dependencies on the major powers. In this context, it
is suggested for ASEAN to form regional stratagem by establishing a specific framework to
face Beijing’s hegemonic economic arrangements such as through the special networking plan
to lessen the financial dependency when dealing with the One Belt One Road initiative. While
the framework might not diminish the substantial worth of China’s economic assistance, it
should be done for the ten countries to form regional mechanisms to improve the Association
centrality and to prevent China's ‘high benefit' from using its influence to destabilise the region.
.Concerning the socio-cultural aspect, ASEAN needs to push forward the sense of ‘we-feelings'
identity relating to the South China Sea dispute, following the focal point of the rules-based
community and people-centred aspiration. It can be done by pushing through the idea of
regional ownership for critical issues in cases of clashes in SCS, where all parties should be
encouraged to submit to the courts of international arbitration. It is because for ASEAN to be
more principled-pragmatic in addressing the contemporary security threats in SCS, the
countries' participation in ASEAN should not be like what it used to be known for, such a
membership in an exclusive regional elite club. The setting now should involve a greater public
connection by taking approaches that give higher publicity.

These suggestions capitalise on the long-lasting narrative that the member states of ASEAN
would find each other for a ‘sense of comfort', only when they realise that there are critical
issues in the Southeast Asia neighbourhood that might affect their national sovereignty. It
should be noted that the article does not attempt to solve the maritime dispute in SCS but
focusing on the significant ways to develop stronger regional resilience in the face of
threatening security threats in the contested water.

Looking forward, the article believes that it is indispensable to take into account the principled-
pragmatism expectation or raison d’être of ASEAN countries regarding the way they view and
conduct their regional and international affairs pertaining the South China Sea dispute. The
view should encircle the significance of ASEAN normative security strategy underlying the
notions of ASEAN Way, neutrality, multilateralism and centrality and how these approaches
can be enriched to advance the Association's role in managing South China Sea dispute. Further
hitherto, the article underlines that the lasting prospect of "safe and peaceful times" in the South
China Sea should calibrate a more tangible enforcement based on the international law and
realistic measures that can scrutinise the present and speculate about the future of both
traditional and non-traditional security matters in the contested waters.

References

Acharya, A., 1998. Culture, security, multilateralism: The ‘ASEAN way’ and regional
order. Contemporary Security Policy, 19(1), pp.55-84.
Acharya, A., 2004. How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and
institutional change in Asian regionalism. International organization, 58(2), pp.239-275.
Acharya, A., 2013. The making of Southeast Asia: International relations of a region. Cornell
University Press.
Acharya, A., 2014. Constructing a security community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the
problem of regional order. Routledge.
Alagappa, M., 2003. Institutional framework: recommendations for change. The 2nd ASEAN
Reader, pp.22-27.

46