Castillo, Dianne Peth G.

Graduate Certificate in ASEAN Studies

ASEAN 202 | Final Exam
Time Access: 9:25 pm
Time Submitted: 11:25 pm

ASEAN’s Regional Institution Building

The five decades of the successful existence of the ASEAN can be attributed to the
political will of the founding ASEAN member states. Throughout the years, the organization had
developed its norms and values, uniquely defining the ASEAN as a whole. Foremost, the
ASEAN Way or the non-interference principle had helped to ease and prevent the on-going
political distrust among the ASEAN members during its formative years. However, as the
globalization arises and more complex problems came about in the ASEAN Community, it is
now being critiqued how the ASEAN Way can resolve these problems. Notably, the region is
facing wide-range of issues as human rights violations, poverty, discriminations, transboundary
environmental problems, the threat of external powers (particularly the issue of the South China
Sea Dispute) and other alarming issues. Needless to say, these issues may put at stake the
ASEAN’s regional institution building. As what stated in the organization’s Vision 2020
Declaration that the ASEAN region is outward looking, living in peace, stability, and prosperity
bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies,
thus it is hopeful that this objective will be achieved by all the ASEAN. However, at the opposite
side, problems still linger in respect to the non-interference principle of the ASEAN.

Today, the issue of human rights violations continue to happen in many ASEAN
countries. The issue of the Rohingya Muslims and even other marginalized sectors such as the
indigenous peoples demonstrated that the democratization process of the ASEAN hinders with
the dualist action of the ASEAN governments. In other words, the ASEAN vowed to protect the
interest of the people yet it opposes the scenarios at the national level and that the government
also violates the mutual agreements. Unfortunately, due to the non-interference principle, other
ASEAN countries may not be able to practice flexible engagement particularly giving criticisms.
Having said that, the continuous human rights violations hinder the ASEAN Community-
Building Process as it challenges the right of the ASEAN people to live in peace and equity.

Another issue in the history of ASEAN which directed affected by the non-interference
principle was the 2007 domestic conflict in Thailand. The said crisis which resulted in killing
and injuring numbers of Thai people was one of the scenarios that tested the worth of the
ASEAN. Analysts and observers said that even the crisis was a local affair it still hurt the pro-
democracy stance of the organization and the pathway to economic integration of the
organization; Nonetheless, it losses the credible of the organization to solve internal issues.

Meanwhile, in terms of regional security, the ASEAN’s consensus and consultative

norms may not totally consider as a success, although the region had maintained its peaceful and
stable relationship amidst dark histories of conflicts and disputes. Arguably, the consensus and
consultative as adopted by other countries through the ASEAN Regional Forum became
popularly mechanisms of preventive diplomacy. In view of the issue of the regional security and
ASEAN norms, critics argue that the ARF is not able to oversee solution to the problem of
disputes in Asia. One prime example is the ASEAN States and the South China Sea Dispute, a
controversial issue over the territories with the immeasurable amount of gas and oil reserves.
However, the majority of involved parties remain silent with the issue and it is only the
Philippines that fought in legal means through Hague International Tribunal Court. From a
viewpoint, not preventing or even addressing the issue of the South China Sea may escalate to
more bloody conflicts and that would greatly affect the people, economy, stability and all other
aspects of the ASEAN and this would impede the building process of the organization.

On the other hand, the ASEAN Charter, the institutionalized document of the
organization had transformed the plans and objectives of the ASEAN in more concrete actions.
In terms of transforming the ASEAN into a more people-oriented and people-centered
organization, the ASEAN Charter shifted from an elite-governmental organization and
encouraged the participation of the civil societies in the Community-Building Process. The
ASEAN Charter guided the ASEAN States on the strategic areas to be prioritized. For instance,
the ASEAN Charter focusing on the three pillars manifested a clear direction toward an
integrated ASEAN Community. The clear objectives along with the legal personalities will
largely contribute to the community building process. The clear tasking of each legal personality
would monitor and strengthen the programs and projects of the ASEAN and that would help fast-
track the regional integration.

In the end, the ASEAN’s norms and values had much contributed to the success of the
organization. However with the emerging of modern issues which requires greater participation
and statement from its co-ASEAN members then it is perhaps necessary to gradually adjust to a
more flexible engagement, otherwise sticking to the “Non-Interference Principle”, ASEAN will
fall short to create a progressive ASEAN Community.

People-Centered ASEAN and the Meta-Nation Paradigm

From a state-centric organization, the ASEAN is moving towards a people-centric

organization. Many believe that the success of regional institution-building lies with the
awareness of the people to the objectives of the organization and their participation in the
community building process. Arguably, even the establishment of the 1967 Bangkok Declaration
aimed to commit to raising the living of the people in the region. Commendably, the ASEAN
Charter provided a transformative opportunity for the welfare and development of its.
Nonetheless, the bumpy road towards the recognition of the people in the community building
process demonstrated a painful process for the ASEAN People. Despite the unwillingness of
most ASEAN countries, particularly authoritarian government such as Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam, Myanmar and even Singapore, to include in the process because this equates to mass
mobilization, but the organization took a giant leap in considering the people in the ASEAN
community building.

To define what a people-centered ASEAN is should be accompanied by the definition of

people-oriented ASEAN. A people-centered and people-oriented ASEAN lauded the
participation of civil societies and people from the grassroots level in the community building
process. All people across the region should benefit to the progress and development that are
taking in the ASEAN. A people-centered and people-oriented ASEAN prioritizes human
development, human interest, and human rights. The people should enjoy a peaceful, equal and
just society. Meanwhile, on a more concrete direction, the ASEAN Charter emphasized that the
ASEAN Charter for ASEAN Peoples and that the organization was now a rule-based, effective
and people-centered necessity for the realization of the ASEAN Community. Several ASEAN
Summits clearly defined what a people-centered and people-oriented ASEAN should be. For
instance, at the 14th ASEAN Summit, it directly supported the interest of the people included in
the socio-cultural aspirations. The adoption of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community serves as
a roadmap to create an ASEAN Community that is people-centered build with a sharing and
caring society towards an inclusive and harmonious well-being. In addition, the ASEAN Socio-
Cultural Community also emphasized the importance of human development, social welfare
justice, and rights. Thus, these historic events in the ASEAN history had placed the significance
of the people in the future endeavors of the organization. A successful ASEAN Community
relies on the successful implementation of the plans and programs that would create advantages
to the people in the ASEAN region. It is imperative for the ASEAN member states to listen and
work for hand in hand with its people to truly achieve a lasting peace and equal community. The
people’s voice and decisions should always be considered in all the decision-making of the
organization and with this, the people would surely contribute much to the success of the
ASEAN Community.

On the other hand, the participation of the people in the ASEAN processes is part of Dr.
Mahiwo’s Meta-Nation State Paradigm. The paradigm emphasizes that global issues are not the
sole responsibility of the state or any influential global powers or global institutions but rather
the participation of the people can create impact in solving or addressing global issues. The
current global system tells it is no longer about the quest for hegemony but rather recognizing the
capacities of even the smallest entities have impact and influence in the global system. The
phenomenon of globalization requires greater involvement of the people in the process.
However, to view Meta-Nation State Paradigm may create confusion as it suggests an
interlocking interaction and between the involved entities

Foremost, Dr. Mahiwo framework called the “Meta-Nation State Paradigm” presented
the inclusion of the people in the development process. Accordingly, the “Meta-Nation State
Paradigm” suggests that there is a shift from conventional state-to-state domination to a more
dynamic multi-channeled, multi-level interaction between and among nation-states (Mahiwo,
n.d.). Primarily, this paradigm postulates that three important strata comprise the system,
identified as the Nation-State Stratum, Sub-Nation State Stratum and Supra-Nation State
Stratum. Meanwhile, under each stratum is represented by certain entities; the Nation State
Stratum refers to government or any related entities like government agencies, the core player in
the system. The Sub-Nation State Stratum refers to sub-national entities like LGUs, provinces,
cities, municipalities, NGOs, multi-national corporations; and Supra-Nation State Stratum refers
to international and regional agencies like UN, ASEAN, APEC, and EU. Mahiwo (n.d.) pointed
out that each stratum plays a dynamic role in the movement of the global system and has
influence over the other. There is the direct connection of entities from the grassroots level to
international level. Mahiwo emphasized the dynamics of the actor or entity in the movement of
global community and each player whether the government, local entities, and international
organization has the influence over the other. Finally, we may see that meta-nation paradigm is
about the relationship, connection, interdependence, integration, of the lowest (grassroots) to
highest (international organizations) entities.

 Mahiwo, S. (n.d.). “A View on Global Tourism: The Philippines in Asia”. Retrieved from
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/hss/book/pdf/vol03_03.pdf