In 2010, as ASEAN celebrated the 43rd year of its existence as a regional organisation, signs of its division became increasingly manifest.
Despite repeated urging for members to move towards the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015, it is becoming obvious that most of the mainland Southeast Asian states (CLMV) see their political and economic futures tied to China far more than to their insular Southeast Asian erstwhile brethren. While the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta pursued its ‘Initiatives for ASEAN Integration,’ lauded “ASEAN Centrality” and dutifully held its 300+ meetings over the year, the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), under the guidance of the Asian Development Bank and China, went from strength to strength in developing a wide array of new linkages, alliances, interactions and interdependencies in mainland Southeast Asia. The GMS has thereby moved steadily from “subregion” towards “region,” and we are seeing the cracks which will almost inevitably produce a permanently-divided ASEAN.
The Greater Mekong Subregion nominally comprises the CLMV countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam) as well as Thailand and the two Chinese provinces of Yunnan and Guangxi.
However, China in toto is in fact the member with national-level technocrats engaging in the various GMS initiatives. The idea of equality of GMS members can thus be dismissed immediately and entirely, with China completely dominating the arrangement. It is thereby that this country of 1.3 billion people is drawing into its various systems the polities and economies of mainland Southeast Asia.
Under the GMS Economic Cooperation Programs, a multitude of new developments have been brought to much of mainland Southeast Asia. About US$11 billion has been injected into infrastructure investment in the GMS region over the last decade with one-third of this coming from the ADB. This aid has been channelled into three so-called economic corridors — multi-country transport arteries now being built across mainland Southeast Asia. The North-South Economic Corridor connects Kunming to Bangkok, while the East-West Corridor ties the Indian Ocean coast of Myanmar with the South China Sea ports of Vietnam. The Southern Economic Corridor connects Bangkok with Phnom Penh, Ho Chi Minh City and Vung Tau. Apart from such hardware, the GMS is also planning and implementing software initiatives in terms of trade and investment facilitation.
China openly declares that the GMS is the most effective economic mechanism in the region.
How are the new policies of Chinese engagement with mainland Southeast Asian states and these GMS projects affecting or being responded to by the respective polities?
The full article is available here.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Maung Maung // Dec 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm
ASEAN is divided since the beginning. Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are not full-fledged democracies. They depend greatly on China for their survival. Unlike EU the ASEAN has no means to make them more democratic or more reflective of their people’s desire and aspirations. So sad!
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
2 ASEAN divides | East Asia Forum // Jan 15, 2011 at 10:31 pm
[...] piece originally appeared here, on New Mandala. Print this post [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
3 ASEAN divides // Jan 16, 2011 at 6:56 pm
[...] piece originally appeared here, on New [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
4 Roy Devesa // Mar 5, 2011 at 4:27 pm
From a budding Filipino historian’s perspective, I think that ASEAN states should begin to realize that the only way for them to escape being involved in unfair deals with great powers such as the USA, China and India is to foster greater ASEAN integration.
The political, geographical and cultural divides between the states can be bridged over time, if the states focus on what they have in common. First, despite the diverse cultures between and within the states of ASEAN, there are common values between them, such as social harmony, informality of relations, respect for elders and adherence to faiths (yes, ASEAN is home to almost all the major religions, but atheism in ASEAN states has a weak following). Even the most “westernized” countries such as Philippines and Singapore still maintain these values. Second, the ASEAN states harbor contempt towards foreign domination. This is owing to their common experience of colonialism, both by European powers in the 1800s and the USA and Japan in the early 20th century. Thailand only escaped outright colonization because it served a common purpose for France and Britain as a buffer states, but otherwise it had to give concessions to them.
ASEAN states should realize that the only way to avoid unfair deals with great powers is to collectively deal with them.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5 Greg Lopez // Mar 6, 2011 at 9:23 am
Hi Roy,
Do you think Singapore’s behavior (liberalizing way ahead of others, supporting Myanmar) benefits the poorer people and the least developing countries in ASEAN?
Also, how do we know that what is best for ASEAN member states is also what is best for the people of ASEAN?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
6 Roy Devesa // Mar 7, 2011 at 10:28 am
Hi Greg,
First of all, I think Singapore’s liberalizing behavior is okay as long as it advocates that other ASEAN states should liberalize at their own pace. The ASEAN Free Trade Area incorporates this advocacy into its program by giving Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam a farther deadline for liberalization. My only hope is that ASEAN can be flexible enough just in case any of these four states ask for an extension.
As for support of Myanmar, I don’t find it unsettling either. First, it gives the junta a range of options for diplomacy, preventing it from being a de facto Chinese satellite. Second, further isolation of Myanmar can give the junta a nothing-to-lose mindset, and encourage it to acquire WMD, not a good thing looking from a Southeast Asian perspective.
As for the last question, you have a good point. The problem with ASEAN is that its decisions are largely made by the political elite of the countries. Even in the more democratic countries of ASEAN, there are no referendums whatsoever regarding ASEAN policies. The informality and leniency of ASEAN’s approach to its policies is probably one of the reasons why there have been no major protests regarding ASEAN policies except for the issue of Myanmar’s human rights record. Then again, I do hope that ASEAN gains some more muscle in its implementation of policies.
I know this is really weird when viewed from a scientific perspective, but I (and maybe here are like me) trust our leaders that they understand the Asian zeitgeist, i.e. prioritization of local economic development over political considerations. It’s not a very logical thing to say, but yes, it’s probably just the Asian way.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
7 Greg Lopez // Mar 7, 2011 at 10:42 am
Thanks Roy, for sharing your views on this.
I guess the most important phrase in your explanation is “trust our leaders.”
Very surprising coming from a Filipino seeing that although you have a “vibrant democracy” with relatively high human capital, the Philippines, probably has the most dysfunctional (& corrupt) political-elite class.
Why would you trust your political leaders?
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
8 Roy Devesa // Mar 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Yes, Greg, I’m aware of that sad state of Philippine politics. Makes having a democracy not something to be proud of.
I would like to make a clarification. In terms of domestic politics, I (and many of the youth like me) despise our politicians. We already tried peaceful revolutions twice, but the problem is that in the current generation of leaders, the only choice seems to be between one more evil and one less evil.
In terms of foreign policy, that’s where we have some semblance of trust. No matter how corrupt the Arroyo presidency was, the former administration was able to raise our growth rates into the 5-7% area, weather the effects of the 2008-2009 financial crisis and improve economic infrastructure at a rate not seen since the early years of Ferdinand Marcos. Since President Ramos in the 90s, I think we have made the right moves in terms of economic diplomacy, and diplomacy in general, despite numerous blunders here and there, for example, the joke that is the Estrada presidency (1998-2001).
That is why I think that discontent has not risen to very high levels, even if it would have been very easy to topple government after government. Despite the multitude of problems our country faces (insurgencies, separatists, high income gap between rich and poor, natural disasters, corruption), ordinary people in our country are feeling the benefits of the rise of Asia (although in varying degrees). Hey, we’re not considered a Newly-Industrialized Country for nothing.
It would probably help if I tell you that my views have been heavily influenced by Kishore Mahbubani.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
9 neptunian // Mar 8, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Phillipines is a “newly industrialised” country? Must be a really loose defination. Its like saying Melaka is a “developed” state.
Was in Manila a few months ago…. armed (with guns) guards in front of almost every shop. Metal detectors at entrances of shopping complexes and always two steps away from an urban slum.
Pride is one thing – false pride will keep you in the backwaters forever.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
10 lpc1998 // May 9, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Quite clearly, there are 2 main paths available to each of the ASEAN states:
1) the US Path leading to tension, conflicts and destruction; or
2) the China Path leading to commerce, development and prosperity.
It is a fallacy of Geoff Wade to imply that the maritime ASEAN states are necessarily excluded from the China-led commerce, development and prosperity. It is matter of choice for, not only of these maritime ASEAN states (comprising of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines, since Malaysia and Singapore are part of the mainland states), but also for other countries worldwide including the US. In the 21st century, the US also needs partners who are importers of US goods unlike in the 20th century, when most are exporters of cheap goods to the US. This is a very important shift in global reality.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.