Part 4 —Costs and Benefits of Multilateralism Through ASEAN Membership for Thayer Vietnam's Regional Integration

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

1

V

IETNAM

’

S

R

EGIONAL

I

NTEGRATION

:

T

HE

C

OSTSAND

B

ENEFITS OF

M

ULTILATERALISM

Carlyle A. Thayer

∗

[Paper to conference on Vietnam’s Integration into the World and StateSovereignty Issues, co-organized the Centre d’Études et de RecherchesInternationales and Centre Asie-Europe, Sciences Po and le École des HautesEtudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France, October 25, 2004]

Introduction

According to the thematic background paper provided by theconference organizers, the Vietnamese state’s authority has comeunder challenge (disputation and questioning) as a consequence ofits twin policies of domestic renewal (

doi moi

) and ‘open door’foreign policy. The thematic background paper argues that currentdynamics operating at the national and supranational levels have, infact, weakened the vertical power of the executive and called intoquestion, to some extent, the sovereignty of the Vietnamese party-state.Finally the thematic background statement asserts:

From a foreign policy point of view, the increasing number ofcommitments linking the Vietnamese State to its foreign partnersconstitutes another limitation on national sovereignty. Vietnam’sintegration into the world community and internationalorganizations, as well as its open-door policy towards foreigninvestors, implicitly require Vietnamese authorities to accept someexogenous norms and political decisions, and eventually even sometransfers of competence away from the national domain.

This paper will explore these propositions by focusing on the processof Vietnam’s regional integration through membership in theAssociation of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) from 1995 untilthe present.

1

∗

Professor of Politics and Foundation Director of The University of New SouthWales (UNSW) Defence Studies Forum at the Australian Defence Force Academyin Canberra. In 2005, Professor Thayer will take up the position of C.V. StarrDistinguished Professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the School of AdvancedInternational Studies, Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D. C. RevisedOctober 27, 2004.

1

For broad overviews of the regional integration process consult Le Van Sang(1998), Vu Duong Ninh (1998), Tran Khanh (2003), Luan Thuy Duong (2004) andVu Van Hien (2004); on the ASEAN Economic Community consult: Dang Cam Tu

2 Thayer

This paper is organized into five parts. Part 1 discusses several keyconceptual and definitional issues. Part 2 traces the origins ofVietnam’s multi-directional foreign policy and Hanoi’s decision to join ASEAN. Part 3 reviews Vietnam’s experience withmultilateralism as a member of ASEAN both before and after theAsian financial crisis of 1997-98. Part 4 reviews the costs and benefitsof Vietnam’s participation in ASEAN with particular focus on theASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) agreement and the reform of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). It also includes a short discussion of the‘code of conduct’ in the South China Sea and the Myanmar question.Part 5 offers some conclusions arising from Vietnam’s experiencewith multilateralism.

Part 1 — Multilateralism, Sovereignty and the State

Vietnam’s membership in ASEAN is effectively an exercise inmultilateral cooperation or multilateralism. At the onset it isimportant to consider just what is meant by this term as there arediffering ‘brands of multilateralism’ (Quilop n.d.). States maycooperate to attain a common interest, or they may cooperate toavoid a particular outcome. In the case of the former, statescooperate when there is an overlap in national interests and theparticular area of overlap cannot be attained by independent action.Thus, states collaborate to attain common interests. But states alsoshare an interest in avoiding certain outcomes. In thesecircumstances states need only to coordinate their actions to avoidcertain outcomes. In other words, these two brands may beidentified as collaborative multilateralism and multilateralcoordination (Stein 1990).The international relations literature on multilateralism distinguishesbetween ‘minimalist’ and ‘maximalist’ positions, identified with thewritings of Robert Keohane and John Ruggie, respectively. Keohane(1990) defines multilateralism as ‘the practice of coordinatingnational policies in groups of three or more states though ad hocarrangements or by means of institutions’ (1990:731). This definitionis termed the ‘minimalist definition’ because of its quantitativenature (three or more states) and because multilateral institutions aredefined as simply ‘multilateral arrangements with persistent sets ofrules’.Ruggie asks what is it about international institutions that make

(2004) and Tran Phuong Lan (2004); and for the impact of globalisation, consult:Do Trong Ba (2003) and Van Quang (2003) .

Vietnam’s Regional Integration 3

them multilateral (1992:566-568). He argues that it is not simply thenumber of actors involved but the qualitative dimension or characterof their cooperation. According to Ruggie, multilateral relationsinvolve three or more states coming together to tackle a specific issueor set of issues on the basis of generalized principles of conduct. Inother words, multilateral institutions adopt appropriate conduct fora class of actions irrespective of particular interests or circumstances.Ruggie identifies three generalized principles that are important:non-discrimination, indivisibility, and diffuse reciprocity. The firstprinciple is virtually self-explanatory. States that engage inmultilateral cooperation do so on an equal basis. The principle ofindivisibility means that decisions made through a multilateralinstitution are mutually binding on state parties. This principle maybe illustrated with reference to the General Agreement of Tariffs andTrade (GATT) or the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle. UnderGATT and MFN the trade system is an indivisible whole and allparties agree to treat each other in a like fashion. The principle ofdiffuse reciprocity means that all members are expected to shareequivalent benefits over a period of time. To take another examplefrom the international trading regime, with respect to exports, forexample, each party should receive roughly the same amount ofbenefit in aggregate over a period of time as all the other parties.A final point on multilateralism needs to be made: the practice ofmultilateralism varies across regions. Multilateralism in Europe, asembodied in the European Union (and its predecessors), is heavilyinstitutionalized, based on rules, regulations and laws, and involvessome derogation of national sovereignty (Gramegna 1997, Lim 1997and Job 1997). In Asia, the process of multilateralism tends to focusmore on process and is shaped by norms and principles (Acharya1997). A quick comparison of the European Union (EU) and ASEANwill bear this out (this point will be discussed at the conclusion ofthis section).The notion of state sovereignty grew out of a distinctly Europeantradition. It is one of the central concepts that defines thecontemporary international system. Sovereignty was adopted bySoutheast Asian’s nationalist leaders and their successors as thecardinal principle of interstate relations in the post-colonial period.In general usage, sovereignty has two distinct meanings – supremepower’ and ‘autonomy’ (freedom for constraint or independence).The Westphalian notion of sovereignty precluded the existence ofany higher authority beyond state borders. Sovereignty has bothdomestic and external dimensions. Sovereignty defines the holders

of 00

Leave a Comment