THE HABIBIE CENTER
DISCUSSION REPORT
No. 09/March 2015
20 th TALKING ASEAN
ASEAN as an Actor in International
Forums: Reality, Potential, and Constraints
The Habibie Center, Jakarta
March 17, 2015
INTRODUCTION
JAKARTA – On Tuesday, 17 March 2015, The Habibie
Center held a Talking ASEAN dialogue entitled “ASEAN
as an Actor in International Forums: Reality, Potential
and Constraints“ at The Habibie Center Building in
Jakarta. This edition of Talking ASEAN featured Prof.
Dr. Juergen Rueland (Department of Political Science,
University of Freiburg, Germany); Mr. Andreas List
(Senior Coordinator for ASEAN, Delegation of the EU
to Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, and ASEAN); and
Mr. J.S. George Lantu (Director of ASEAN Functional
Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of
Indonesia) as resource persons with Ms. Rahimah
Abdulrahim (Executive Director, The Habibie Center) as
the moderator.
The objectives of this Talking ASEAN were to elaborate
the perspective from various experts : (a) to address
the key arguments surrounding ASEAN as an Actor
in International Forums; (b) to understand the
rationale behind ASEAN’s ambitions to be an Actor
in International Forums and the steps taken so far;
(c) to explore the attitudes and stances of external
actors in International Forums towards ASEAN’s
ambitions to be an actor; and (d) to produce possible
recommendations regarding strengthening ASEAN as
an Actor in International Forums.
This discussion report summarizes the key points
of each speaker as well as the question and answer
session that followed.
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland
The first to speak at the Talking ASEAN dialogue
was Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland. Before he started
his presentation, he gave three questions to lead
the discussion: How did ASEAN operate in global
forums? How cohesive was ASEAN in global
forums? Which factors shaped ASEAN’s behaviour
in global forums? Furthermore, his study also tried
to examine ASEAN’s role in international forums,
multilateral forums and the UN General Assembly.
Prof. Dr. Juergen argued that the more regional
organizations integrate or the deeper they
integrate, the more cohesive they become. It was
also important to take things into consideration
such as historical experiences, circumstances in
which a regional organization operated and its
neighbourhood countries. Those were factors that
strongly influenced the institutional set-up because
if there was a high level of distrust, then it would be
hard to achieve cohesiveness in the organization. In
the context of ASEAN, the institutional set-up was
built upon governmental concept and sovereignty.
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland Department of Political Science, University of Freiburg, Germany
In terms of norms, ASEAN was very successful in
creating norms in the region and more wider to the
Asia-Pacific. ASEAN showed its ASEAN way in many
meetings, one of which was EU-ASEAN meetings.
In international forums, sometimes ASEAN was
relatively reluctant and showed reservation
regarding changes, and gave conservative stances,
basically proposing sovereignty norms. Moreover,
ASEAN was not a radical challenger of international
organization architecture. However, ASEAN often
criticized many procedures and ways of defining
membership of international organizations. ASEAN
also said that international organizations were
sometimes too elitist therefore it certainly had to
be changed. ASEAN always took a lot of concern for
being considered as a good global citizen.
Regarding the capacity of ASEAN as an international
negotiator, in order to negotiate successfully, he
said ASEAN must have certain infrastructures such
as knowledge infrastructure both nationally and
regionally. ASEAN should have better coordination
as well in facing negotiations.
With regard to regional negotiation capacity,
Prof. Dr. Juergen further asked to what extend the
ASEAN Secretariat could adopt a catalyst function
in knowledge management? The ASEAN Secretariat
should provide resources and give solutions to
international issues. Thus, the ASEAN Secretariat
With regard to the third stage, if there was a voting
needed to have a better decision making process.
in international forums, and ASEAN abstained, it
In order to increase regional capacity in meant that there was a disagreement within the
international negotiation, there were three regional organization. In terms of absences, there
stages of negotiation. First, identifying problems, were only a few cases when Indonesia’s vote was
defining issues, and agenda setting. Second, split with the other ASEAN member countries.
setting principles, norms, rules, and procedures
In terms of compliance, ASEAN’s compliance
of negotiations and international cooperation.
record was rather mixed. As in WTO, there were a
Third, concluding the negotiations: voting and
few challenges facing ASEAN with regard to dispute
compliance.
settlement mechanism. In terms of human rights
1
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland
(left) Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland - Department of Political Science, University of Freiburg, Germany
“In order to negotiate successfully,
ASEAN
must
have
certain
infrastructures such as knowledge
infrastructure both nationally and
regionally. ASEAN should have
better coordination as well in facing
negotiations.”
and climate change, ASEAN’s compliance was seen
to be less impressive.
ASEAN as an actor in global forums should have
negotiation strategies. Prof. Dr. Juergen mentioned
five strategies: (a) competing for executive and
leadership positions, (b) framing, (c) coalition
building, (d) forum shopping, and (e) image
projection and creation of “soft power”. If ASEAN
applied the strategies then ASEAN could influence
international negotiations. ASEAN rarely operated
as a quasi-bloc during international negotiations.
He concluded that cohesion was very often lacking.
However, if ASEAN was facing vital issues such as
the fallout from Cambodia’s ASEAN Summit a few
years ago, then the possibility of ASEAN to act
cohesively was greater.
- Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland -
2
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Andreas List
situation, ASEAN was not part of any of them but
at the same time ASEAN was also not part of any
solutions according to Mr. Andreas.
However, with regard to non-traditional security
issues such as trans-border crimes, epidemics,
terrorism, and tsunami, ASEAN was very much part
of it because ASEAN faced these problems. Indeed,
in these cases ASEAN was part of the solutions and
sometimes ASEAN even took a lead.
Mr. Andreas then touched on ASEAN;’s intermediate
results: (a) US – China relations were crucial. ASEAN
should be aware of the situation; (b) bilateral
alliances, coalitions, counted more than regional
approaches. How did it make ASEAN feasible as
a group? (c) with regard to being a global player,
what made an institution becomes a global player?
In his view, delivery of public goods and the most
important public goods was security. Was ASEAN
ready to fulfill the role?
Touching on the Bali Concord III, Mr. Andreas List
stated that it was mostly inward looking and mostly
explained about having a common voice, capacity,
and stronger ASEAN Secretariat. A common voice
was important but if ASEAN was going to have a
common voice, it had to be clear to whom ASEAN
was speaking. With regard to enhancing capacity,
Mr. Andreas noted that a stronger ASEAN Secretariat
was often advocated but it was doubted if such a
proposal would be implemented as the political will
for it was questionable.
Mr. Andreas List - Senior Coordinator for ASEAN, Delegation
of the EU to Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, and ASEAN
The second resource person to speak was Mr.
Andreas List. He started his presentation by
explaining value judgement with regards to ASEAN
as an international actor. In terms of potential, he
would score ASEAN six out of ten. However in
terms of constraint he valued ASEAN at four out Mr. Andreas concluded by saying ASEAN was an
of ten. With regard to role, it was still undecided inward looking organization with many unfinished
because the future was still open. On the one hand, business.
there were many institutions that were seen as not
moving anywhere, but on the other hand, ASEAN
“A common voice is important but if ASEAN
was creating a post-2015 strategy.
is going to have a common voice, it has
to be clear to whom ASEAN is speaking...
A stronger ASEAN Secretariat has often
been advocated but it is doubtful if such
a proposal would be implemented as the
political will for it is questionable.”
Mr. Andreas also explained that major power shift
had happened over the last two decades in the
region and questioned whether ASEAN had realized
the situation. Major power relations between China
and the US had moved from pragmatic relations of
collaboration into collaboration and competition.
The US pivot to Asia was a challenge and a reaction
to China’s assertive behavior. If we looked at the
3
- Andreas List -
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
J.S. George Lantu
sufficiently strong enough to serve the member
states. However, the members as sovereign nationstates did not want to be dictated by the ASEAN
Secretariat. In addition, when negotiations took
place, Southeast Asian diplomats were often shy
using their cultural background to achieve what
they wanted. They would find ways to find their
way to be successful. In order words, pursuing goals
without giving damages was the ASEAN way.
Second, was related to norms. ASEAN was already
creating new norms, one of which is being a loose
organization that was nonetheless successful. Many
people used to be wondering whether ASEAN would
be successful since ASEAN was very loose yet Mr.
George believed ASEAN had proven itself. Consensus
was another important norm for ASEAN.
With regard to compliance, ASEAN was good at this
according to Mr. George. ASEAN always wanted to
be part of the decision making process. However,
ASEAN’s goal was to have what it wanted without
making a big fuss with all the other major powers.
ASEAN did not want to be seen as a very big nor a
small organization since ASEAN only wanted to be
itself, based on serving the interests of its people.
Mr. J.S. George Lantu - Director of ASEAN Functional Cooperation, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Republic of Indonesia
He further argued that ASEAN almost put a limited
budget in everything but ASEAN always wanted
to be accountable and transparent. With regard
to comfort level, sometimes Indonesia had very
high or big goals but we had to adjust it with other
members. Mr. George concluded his presentation by
emphasizing that ASEAN was beautiful in its own
way.
The third resource person to speak was Mr. J.S.
George Lantu. He explained that as an association,
ASEAN worked together to achieve its goals. ASEAN
was a very loose organization and it had evolved to
be an institution that was suitable for each member
of ASEAN. He argued that, “ASEAN minus one” was
not ASEAN. That was why ASEAN always sought to
achieve the agreement of all its members and was a
consensus-based organization. It was important that
ASEAN should be at a level comfortable to all of its
members. Mr. George added that there should be no
intention to break the very thin layer of cooperation
between ASEAN member countries in cooperating
with each other. In this sense, it was not correct to
compare ASEAN with the EU.
“ASEAN minus one” is not ASEAN.
That is why ASEAN has always sought
to achieve the agreement of all its
members... it is important that ASEAN
should be at a level comfortable to all
of its members.”
Furthermore, Mr. George explained two things
related to ASEAN in response to Prof. Dr. Jurgen’s
study. First, the ASEAN Secretariat should be
- J.S. George Lantu 4
Q&A SESSION
One of the audience raising questions and giving comments during Q&A session.
Comment No. 1
Comment No. 3
If we are talking about ASEAN, there are so
many complexity. But of course we would like
to get some experience from the EU on how
to overcome the problems of complexity since
ASEAN is approaching the ASEAN Community.
ASEAN consists of ASEAN-6 and CLMV thus
there are gaps in terms of socio-economics.
However, CLMV countries are trying hard to
expedite their economies because they would
like to get benefits from the ASEAN Community.
How far do we have to narrow the gap in terms
of economics to make it closer?
First, the study is too focused on state actors.
It is worth examining ASEAN’s role as an
international actor from the non-state actor
point of view. Do the non-state actors have
any roles? Compared to their non-state
counterparts, ASEAN diplomats sometimes are
too conservative. Mr. George mentioned that
ASEAN Secretariat should always be there to
serve the members. However, the demand from
the society is changing quiet significantly. Thus,
the ASEAN Secretariat should rethink its role
and function. Moreover, we are not passionate
about the very slow integration. Second, ASEAN
is not doing well. So what do you suggest in
order for ASEAN to move forward?
Comment No. 2
What do you think AIPA (ASEAN Inter
Parliamentary Assembly) can do to support
ASEAN in order to achieve its goals? We have
issued some resolutions however they are not
legally binding.
5
Q&A SESSION
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland
When there is an external shock such as a
financial crisis in the region, it strongly affected
the way ASEAN looked at its region internally
and externally. I do not think that there will
be a major change in the short term. But I
suggest that the ASEAN Secretariat should be
more efficient in the sense of being a catalyst of
knowledge and provide know-how to respective
governments.
Regarding non-state actors, it is indeed an
important point to be addressed in our research.
Despite several changes that have happened in
ASEAN, there is still a major reluctance from
some official representatives to interact with
the NGOs.
With regard to AIPA, it is not officially part of
ASEAN and has low recommendatory power.
Parliament should be an oversight agency.
Mr. Andreas List
As ASEAN develops politically and economically,
AIPA’s role should be stronger.
(left) Rahimah Abdulrahim - Executive Director, The Habibie Center,
moderates the Q&A session.
Regarding the development gap issue and
coherent voice, there is no such evidence that
link both issues. In EU, even if there are some
weaker countries, as long as you have coherent
decision making mechanism and sound
solidarity in Brussels, we are all in the same
level. There is indeed an interest to narrow
the gap between ASEAN-6 and ASEAN-4, the
EU also shares the same interest. The EU
has found a quite simple formula which is
easy to understand that can create internal
cohesiveness.
many people do not yet realize the integration
process in ASEAN. For example, they still think
that we will face AFTA (ASEAN FTA) when the
fact is that AFTA is already here and we are
about to face instead the ASEAN Economic
Community.
Regarding the AIPA, you should ask the leaders
to review the mandate of AIPA because it
depends on the mandate they have. There will
be a way in increasing the role of AIPA. One
of which is to review the mandate. However,
we do not know yet whether ASEAN member
countries can agree with that.
Mr. J.S. George Lantu
We should not only depend on ASEAN diplomats
because civil societies are also important.
Institutions related to ASEAN should work
together in finding solutions for ASEAN. For
example, ABAC (ASEAN Business Advisory
Council) has played its role well.
Regarding the ASEAN Community, the
integration is a process. We cannot expect the
ASEAN Community will come into perfection
on December 31st, 2015. This is not a one time
event, but a process.
Regarding the integration process, we have to
admit that the progress is slow. Furthermore,
6
Q&A SESSION
Comment No. 4
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland
Indeed, regional organizations are more vocal
in international forum than they have been
before. There is a greater tendency from them
to be an actor in its own right.
One of the constraints in agriculture sector in
Indonesia is the high price of fertilizers. How is
the role of ASEAN member countries to achieve
food stability and food security?
However, sometimes they can only act
cohesively in low politics issue when not so
much is at stake so they can agree on it quickly.
I will take your suggestion closely to look at
other regional organization forum.
Mr. J.S. George Lantu
The issue about food security is very important
and has been discussed at the ministerial and
leaders level in ASEAN. We help each other to
find solutions because the issue of rice price
increase is related to food security. Sometimes
we discuss the issue with Vietnam and Thailand.
In the context of ASEAN, the issues go up to the
level of our leaders.
Comment No. 6
Can you tell us more about your current study?
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rueland
Comment No. 5
Another study that has not been complete
is actually about Indonesia’s foreign policy,
identity, how Indonesian stakeholders view
Southeast Asian regionalism, what role
Indonesia should play regionally and even
globally.
I have been interested in how different
countries and different regional organizations
play out their strategies. I have not necessarily
seen ASEAN as a particularly strong group
but sometimes I have seen strong voices from
ASEAN countries. In the context of the Pacific
Islands Forum, when we have a meeting, I tend
to see the small island states of the Pacific
show a remarkable degree of cohesion and a
remarkable international voice. They are highly
influential in climate change issue. Although
they are very diverse, have different interest but
they can work together. What is your comment
about this?
I would like to add a comment on the EU and
ASEAN, after the financial crisis, there was a
complete rethinking over ASEAN’s modality. I
rejected the idea that ASEAN is becoming more
similar to the EU. EU is said to be a gold standard
of regional organization and everybody is
imitating EU but this is not correct.
--END--
7
8
PROJECT SUPERVISOR:
Rahimah Abdulrahim
(Executive Director)
Hadi Kuntjara
(Deputy Director for Operations)
HEAD OF ASEAN STUDIES PROGRAM:
A. Ibrahim Almuttaqi
RESEARCHERS:
Steven Yohanes P.
Fina Astriana
Wirya Adiwena
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION :
Riesta Aldila
Layout and Design by Rahma
ASEAN Studies Program - The Habibie Center
The Habibie Center Building
Jl. Kemang Selatan No.98, Jakarta 12560
Tel: 62 21 781 7211
Fax: 62 21 781 7212
Email: [email protected]
www.habibiecenter.or.id
facebook.com/habibiecenter
@habibiecenter