NEW: SEACA Occasional Paper on Regionalism
Posted:  February 14, 2008   04:50:43pm

Excerpts…

Notwithstanding the proliferation of regional initiatives in the last decade, the currency of regionalism and regional integration arises more out of the reaction to the rapidness by which the multilateral system is overtaking the world, rather than from an established (indigenous?) need for it. North America forged a Free Trade Area as a reaction to the consolidation of the European Union. The initiatives in Asia and the Pacific have been prompted more by the desire of the bigger economies (US in the case of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation; EU in the case of Asia Europe Meeting) not to be left out of any major moves by the developing world to cooperate with each other. While the EU can boast of the longest history of regional cooperation with broad focus, attempts elsewhere had been limited to economic (specifically trade) agreements, with some not even close to claiming any success (e.g. Latin America and Africa).

In the developing world, it is South East Asia that can lay some claim to sustained cooperation. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) started out as an initiative to prevent the feared domino effect, or of communism taking over the region after having captured the mainland (Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam). Despite the volatile peace within, what started as a highly political alliance soon branched out to economic and socio-cultural cooperation. While the security aspect of ASEAN cooperation is hailed for having prevented wars in the region, the economic aspect has yielded but limited integration of economies. Instead, the region’s defined economic area has been used to attract external economic giants, particularly the big neighbors Japan and South Korea, and served as a platform for investments coming from North America and Western Europe. It is for this reason that more innovative proposals (like joint venture and complementation schemes) have had limited success, some ending even before they had a chance to really take off. The area of socio-cultural cooperation, on the other hand, suffers from the lack of attention evidenced by the lack of funds for identified regional projects. ASEAN has had to rely heavily on external financing to sustain efforts in health, environment, education, and similar sectors.

The seeming lack of “teeth”, or effective implementing mechanisms within the ASEAN; the relatively small share of intra-ASEAN trade to total trade; and the absence of unmistakable support for broad regional social projects, all combine to give the impression of ASEAN’s limited reach. Yet, South East Asia has come to be known for some of the more inventive forms of cooperation in the past two and a half decades. Sub-regional cooperation and growth triangles (e.g. the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area/BIMP-EAGA, and the Greater Mekong Subregion/GMS), and the cooperation with non-ASEAN countries (ASEAN+X), catered to some pressing needs and facilitated cooperation in a number of areas. Such cooperation has had the participation of multilateral institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, or the involvement of big economies (e.g. China, Japan, South Korea), putting into question the viability of ASEAN without outside help.

Because ASEAN is perceived as less aggressive (and less powerful) than the multilateral organizations, it has not been a major target of civil society advocacy. Advocacy had been targeted at the multilateral organizations (e.g. how their support for regional and sub-regional projects hurts the environment or displaces people), or against known hegemons (e.g. how United States military aid, presence, and anti-terrorism campaign cause major upheavals in the region). The question of regional responses – whether and what are needed and how – becomes secondary. If ASEAN is at all noticed, it is for the negative impacts of its initiatives – e.g. how the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is harming the farm sector, rather than whether regional trade can be restructured to develop regional agriculture.

Several things account for the weak reception to regionalism or regional advocacy in ASEAN. The lack of information about or participation in the different regional trade and economic integration initiatives tops the list. Globalization has also proceeded much faster than most regionalist projects, making civil society more global than regional. A major theme in global civil society advocacy is resistance to neo-liberal economic agenda, which is generally replicated in regional projects. The history of authoritarian and dictatorial rule in the region also created a suspicion of Governments that lead the regional initiatives.

Slowly, however, regional advocacy is gaining currency. Several CSOs have found regional expressions for their national and international advocacies. Spaces in ASEAN have also been pried open for civil society intervention. Civil society starts to pay attention to the issues of regional identity, cooperation, and alternative regionalism.

This paper aims to shed light on two things: (1) the various economic cooperation and integration it gave rise to; and (2) the extent of civil society analysis and view of regionalism and regional integration. It is hoped that by juxtaposing the basic frameworks of official ASEAN policy with those of civil society analysis and advocacy, broad themes for engagement and/or resistance may be extracted and initial unities on regionalism can be developed.

Dilemmas of Competition and Community-Building: Developing Civil Society Response to Regional Trade and Economic Integration, co-written by Jenina Joy Chavez and Alexander C. Chandra, is part of South East Asian Committee for Advocacy’s (SEACA’s) Occasional Papers. Released in January 2008, this Occasional Paper is available at the SEACA office: #29-D Mayaman Street UP Village, Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Philippines. For inquiries about the purchase or distribution of the publication, please contact SEACA at info@seaca.net.