1. What are the major challenges that face ASEAN’s internal policies?

- Inability to represent all of Southeast Asia [case in sight - Timor-Leste being internationally
recognized as an independent state that did not join ASEAN (even in 2007)]

- Timor-Leste’s non-membership undermine the explicitly non-political image of Southeast

Asia that has been so central to that “ASEAN Way”: the ruling out of political considerations
as criteria for extending or refusing membership to an applicant state.

- Research of the knowledge and feelings towards ASEAN could help avoid comparable
disappointment in ASEAN circles [especially now that the Association has escalated its
agenda to include transforming Southeast Asia from an ASEAN region to an ASEAN
community]

- A tyranny of political criteria can hurt ASEAN’s ability to generate a regional economic
community and those hoping for the Association to turn the region into a socio-cultural
community may have even greater cause to complain

- Democracy in ASEAN will rise or decline in its member countries primarily because of the
conditions, events, and actors that are internal to them

2. How would you assess ASEAN’s regional identity building process?

- ASEAN’s regional identity building process is a revolving phenomenon that continues to
face the challenge of finding a common ground for diverse identities. There is a struggle in
identity building at the regional level because of the individual challenges faced by the
individual member countries in nation building.

- There continues to be a gap between the official ASEAN and the people’s ASEAN. The
perspectives of ASEAN members in various countries differ from being ASEAN-enthusiasts
& ASEAN-sceptics. The knowledge or awareness that people have of the ASEAN is not as
strong in some countries (such as the Philippines and Myanmar) as compared to others
(Vietnam, Laos, Brunei, & Indonesia).

- ASEAN’s regional identity building process is also constrained by the perception that a
regional identity is being superimposed on the existing multiple layers of culture, history,
and ethnicity. The perception of ASEAN as an elitist organization suggests a barrier to
forming a regional identity.

- There is also a challenge in terms of messaging or communication of information on

ASEAN to member states. there is a gap between the pronouncements made on ASEAN
regionalism and in the actual practice of participatory processes in implementing these
pronouncements —> this means that there is a challenge in engaging members of ASEAN
countries.

3. What are some of the suggestions on going about establishing an ASEAN Security
Community?
- ASEAN needs to intensify political confidence-building mechanisms required for closer
regional cooperation. ASEAN should also set itself a political landmark goal.

- The European Union’s example of unification —> ASEAN member countries need to work
together to deal with ASEAN’s weaknesses and shore up its strengths [case in sight - the
intervention of western powers in East Timor because ASEAN could not & the financial
crisis of 1997-1998 that ASEAN failed to deal with]

- Looking at the context of Bali Concord II —> this community aims to be founded on three
pillars — 1) political & security cooperation 2) economic cooperation 3) socio-cultural
cooperation

• Socio-cultural cooperation —> organize an ASEAN Socio-Cultural Center

• Economic Cooperation —> AFTA [ASEAN Free Trade Area]

• Political cooperation —> transforming the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization [AIPO]

into a full fledged ASEAN Parliament on the model of European, Latin, American, and
African Parliaments already established

4. How would you assess the Political Security Community building efforts in the ASEAN?
- The declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II) aimed to ensure that the ASEAN
countries live at peace with one another and in a just, democratic, and harmonious
environment.

- While the asian may not have had the same cohesiveness that was present in the European
Union’s example of unification, ASEAN was able to demonstrate its will to further improve its
cooperative framework in the midst of a new security environment.

- The establishment of the ASEAN Trioka as an ad hoc body whose purpose was to enable
ASEAN to address urgent and important political and security issues in a timely matter could
help ASEAN address issues similar to the controversy of Myanmar and Cambodia’s
membership [see page 21 of pdf]

- The institution for the Regional Haze Action Plan (RHAP), calling for each ASEAN member to
develop a national haze action plan requiring them to report their own plans to combat fires
and haze in their respective environments was a good decision to avoid the environmental
damage that similarly occurred in Southeast Asia between 1997 and 1998.

- ASEAN’s settlement for an “enhanced interaction” as opposed to Anwar Ibrahim’s proposal

for “constructive intervention” shows than ASEAN values its norm of non-interference.
Despite the challenges that non-interference may bring, such as the lack of an open and frank
discussion as Surin had proposed, ASEAN has chosen to function in its way of quiet
diplomacy.