ASEAN Diversities
Class: IS210 Created Time: March 11, 2020 4:17 PM Database: Assignment Database Last Edited Time: July 10, 2021 11:27 PM Provided Materials: IS210-PresentationAssignment-Guidelines.pdf Status: Done
Group 3 Members
- Sem Sonita
- Rith Chanphirun
- Sem Sereyroth
- Hoeung Sodarina
- Chea Resan
- Huy Lysieng
ASEAN Diversity Assignment Outline Research
-
First Draft Research
ASEAN Adopting Western Value of Globalization
Finally, in conducting external relations with its dialogue partners, ASEAN’s actions tend to enforce a free trade regime. ASEAN, in this regard, has fallen into the regime of capitalism, a Western product. In this sense, ASEAN has unconsciously adopted Western values. By integrating with the world market ASEAN is mimicking the Western approach.
CLVM and ASEAN Six Economic Gap
Although consensus building within ASEAN comes more naturally by focusing on similarities and recurring patterns, the ASEAN approach needs to address, rather than ignore, their gap and strive to meet their differences through similarities.
Difference In Income: ASEAN member states span a wide spectrum of income levels, ranging from Singapore’s GDP per capita of 1,384 and Myanmar’s $1,298 in 2017. In recent years, lower-income states have made important gains. However, regional economic gains have fallen short of erasing significant differences among ASEAN member states.
ASEAN Acting Separately Page: 220
Through ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, members can act collectively to gain regional trade agreements. However, Bilateral agreements can be far better than collectively especially for Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Free Trade Agreements can undermine the importance of ASEAN for economies.
-
First Draft
The ten members of ASEAN is generally separated by outsiders into two groups, the ASEAN Six and the CLMV. The ASEAN Six includes Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. These are countries which are prosperous in economic activity and are richer in general compared to the rest of the members. On the other hand, the CLMV consists of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, which are countries with lower income and less developed society and economy. The difference between Singapore GDP per capita of 1,299 is so large that collective trade agreements are less likely to be offered (H. Pletcher, 2019). This unofficial divide in Member States of ASEAN means that bilateral free trade agreements between each ASEAN Six members are more incentivizing than multilateral signings with ASEAN as a whole (Donold E. Weatherbee, 2008). This divides ASEAN’s integration in two ways. One is that ASEAN as an economic cooperation platform for collective actions and mutual growth fails to fulfil its role. ASEAN members pursue their national interests and trade agreements elsewhere, in turn, halting ASEAN integration efforts. Secondly, the CLMV’s ties and reliance on external powers such as China for economic growth means their decision making in ASEAN is influenced by their relations, especially as ASEAN is a consensus based institution. For Instance, China’s influence on Cambodia’s trade had pushed the country to block ASEAN unified movement on the South China Sea issue in both 2012 and 2016 (Hutt, 2016). Finally, ASEAN’s focus on dialogue partners’ free trade agreements has strayed from its ASEAN Values or ASEAN Ways of self-engagement to the capitalistic globalized market values of the West (Bara, 2014). As ASEAN’s members will act as separate entities in trade and as it hold onto its inconsistent values, ASEAN will continue to be a weak institution in integrating the South East Asian Region.
Writing
The second aspect of diversity in ASEAN is the economy. Generally, ASEAN is described from outsiders as being divided into 2 groups, the ASEAN Six, which are Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. These countries have significantly larger economies than the rest of the members which are the CLMV, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Moving on from that we can see from the graphs here that shows the difference between ASEAN members’ GDP, and especially with GDP per capita which in 2018 Singapore had 1,299. What this economic diversity means is there is less incentive for other countries to do multilateral regional trade agreements, when they can just making a few bilateral free trade agreements with the richer members and get more benefits from it. And this divides ASEAN in two ways, First is that it makes ASEAN a failure as a cooperation platform because united regional interests are undermined by each member’s national interests, where ASEAN members seek bilateral agreements instead of acting as a group. The second way Economic diversity divides ASEAN is that it invites external influence in decision makings. Economic reliance on world powers means that they can influence decision makings in ASEAN, as it is a consensus based institution. As we’ve already seen China’s influence over Cambodia had pushed the country to block ASEAN unified movement on the South China Sea Issue in both 2012 and 2016.
Lecturer’s Feedback
Intro
-
although the association has survived a long time, it still have flaws that make it ineffective and lead it to it’s decision making shortcomings
-
What are the types of diversities in ASEAN?
⇒ whys it a problem for ASEAN: for integration and decision making
-
ASEAN way and it’s weaknesses
Sovereignty
Consensus
-
Structure: this essay will explore the ASEAN decision making process and it’s problem
Body
Diversity in Religion
Rohingya crisis
Created problems of racism
US invasion of Iraq
Indonesia, malaysia and brunei condeming US (Iraq invasion) and Myanmar for Rohingya, but failed due to consensus
Economic Diversity
large difference in economic size make it difficult in doing trade, if unsupported poorer economies will turn to external power ⇒ separation of national interests
Political Diversity
- Different political systems
- Monarchy
- Constitutional Monarchy
- Authoritarianism…
Conclusion
diversities of asean: religion, economic, and political makes it a problem for ASEAN in decision making