The State of Studies: A Literature Review - Research Paper Example

THE STATE OF ASEAN STUDIES: A LITERATURE REVIEW This section would first provide an overview of the existing literatures related to the topic under study on ASEAN studies. This review aimed to present a cursory outlook at how this information were sought to answer the questions and problems of this research study. The books and the articles reviewed might not be a representative of the complete array of information about ASEAN studies. Furthermore, the selection for including the literatures was solely based on the accessibility of the materials. This review of literatures was divided into the following segments: a) The ASEAN, b) The Opposing Views on ASEAN: The Realists against the Constructivists, and c) On the Centrality of ASEAN and Regional Institutions. The expediency of this section was to help grasp an outlook on how to understand the focus of this research. The ASEAN The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or what people mostly known as ASEAN, was Southeast Asia’s geo – political and economic organization which was established by its Founding Fathers such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand on 8 August 1967. It had extended its membership to another five (5) countries namely Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia. This had made ASEAN to be composed of ten (10) Members of State. Basically, this association was formed with seven (7) objectives. First, it aimed at the speeding up of the economic growth, social advancement, as well as cultural development among its Members of State. Second, it aimed at the promotion of regional peace and stabilization in the entire regions. Third, it aims at the advancement of active cooperation and shared assistance on the social, cultural, economic, technical, scientific and administrative aspects. Fourth, it aimed at the provision of assistance of educational, professional, technical and administrative realms through the means of training and research. Fifth, it aimed at working in a more effective partnership for the improvement in all aspects of the living standards of their citizens. Sixth, it aimed at the supporting the Southeast Asian studies. Lastly, it aimed at the maintenance of an advantageous cooperation among its Members of State.1 The Opposing Views on ASEAN: The Realists against the Constructivists For such a long time, the ASEAN was understood in such state of stability. However, it was the case that there was an on – going debate between the realists against the constructivists in terms of their particular views on ASEAN. For the point of view of the realists, they had perceived the Southeast Asian organization as a very threat – driven and a security – oriented organization as well. According to Dibb, the stability of ASEAN was grounded on the existence of the American force for the reason that it was in charge for guaranteeing the protection and defense of these 10 state – members of ASEAN. Aside from security provision, the power of United States was also capable of preventing the threatening behaviors from others. In this manner, United States had functioned to hold the balance of power in the security – oriented association of the Southeast Asia.2 In terms of security in the Asia – Pacific, the realist paradigm had mainly emphasized the capacities of the claimant states to start a disagreement. In the 1990s, it was the case of the Spratly Islands that had been a sign of an intensifying tension in the area. China’s marine power was not enough in terms of regional military upgrade. Its power was not even adequate given that the forces of United States were present in the area.3 Meanwhile, even with the given unwillingness of Washington to be connected in the Philippine concern, the realist paradigm, in their analysis, had suggested that the American force was responsible for preventing the aggressiveness by the Chinese towards Spratly Islands.4 Moreover, China had been singled out when America declared its interest in liberty of navigation in which it conveyed to all parties an urge to implement their restriction.5 Nonetheless, coming from the realist point of view, it was the case that the issue of power and authority over the islands was not regarded directly as a threat to the national security for the greater part of ASEAN states but it was because each member of the ASEAN had their particular agenda on China.6 Based on the point of view of the realists, an inclination of the state to instigate a military challenge over a contested territory was basically a function of the abilities and interests of the armed forces.7 Likewise, the set of occurrences during the 2002 Declaration would not take place if America was not there to balance China’s control in the area. On the one hand, many dynamics of the ASEAN were just left unexplained. In order to shed light on the unsolved aspects, constructivism was developed as a perspective of the Southeast Asian politics.8 It was the case that the ASEAN states had been sharing common values of dedication towards economic growth, governance security as well as political control but not shared values and ideas on democracy and interdependence. 9 This had supported the constructivists in their Asian international relations assessment. The case of China in the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was set as an illustration. It was that China had accepted the ASEAN’s norm in contrast to the use of force to resolve such disputes. However, the given convincing explanation on the ASEAN’s dynamics by the constructivist perspective had allowed the probability of making the compelling control of such collective norms and identity too much. Coming from the point of view of the constructivists, the occupation of the Mischief Reef was perceived as a policy alteration despite the important strides that was shown by ASEAN in involving China on the concern of the South China Sea, as well as notwithstanding China’s attentiveness in involving its neighboring regions in Asia. This was for the reason that China had prevented a military confrontation against the state – members of ASEAN.10 Even though some had claimed that ASEAN opposed greatly to the Mischief Reef occupation, in 1998, China even managed to improve its quarters on the reef. 11 On the one hand, the tension between ASEAN and China was marked with the unwillingness shown to enter binding agreements by both ASEAN members as well as China. In particular, the tension in the South China Sea zone was not concerning all the 10 state – members but only Vietnam and Philippines. Aside from the given tensions within ASEAN, what worsen the disagreements in South China Sea were the unalike understandings of international norms. Basically, it was apparent, despite the constructivist’s take on the growing shared norms and associations, that Asian states had remained to value the normative standards of national power and control.12 What was clear was that the constructivist perspective could only account for some dynamics but it had not covered all including the Southeast Asian states’ approval of international norms. On the Centrality of ASEAN and Regional Institutions Aside from the on – going opposing views between realists and constructivists were the issues on the centrality of ASEAN and regional institutions. At this point, the concern was on the capacity of ASEAN to remain the driver of East Asian regionalism. In East Asia, the moving ahead of region – building was observed. After the post – world war era, there were ASEAN Regional Forum, East Asian Summit and other meetings as well. There was a wide array of observed movements in the sphere of economy in particular though there was no perceived scheme of strengthening the cooperation and integration for East Asia to be a so – called East Asian community. A developing form of regionalism in East Asia through ASEAN+3 or ASEAN plus China, Japan as well as Korea had taken place. However, tensions in terms of relations due to various issues had come up among the countries. In 2010, Searight talked about the Asian Regionalism.13 For her, the rigorous global financial crisis which had originated in the United States had been forming the Asian regionalism over the past eighteen (18) months. The effect of this crisis had shaped the rest of the world including Asia. In order to recover from the economic downturn and to shape the dispute regarding the Asian regionalism, there were newly elected political heads to lead the key Asia – Pacific states. In this grand visions for new leadership in a new regional “community,” Australia and Japan had shown their interests. However, it was also the case that the new Obama administration had shown its active regional international relations in Asia. With the given active diplomacy of Australia, Japan and United States, the spotlights had been taken away from the chief drivers of regionalism as well as community – building namely, China, ASEAN and Korea. The ASEAN’s role had been challenged for it was perceived as a somewhat – passive driver of regionalism. It was the case that the twenty – seven (27) members of ASEAN Regional Forum had been confronted with their significance and effectiveness for multilateral security and cooperation in the Asia – Pacific region. Some argued the unlikelihood of this centrality. For some, ASEAN was regarded as a slow driver instead of making progress. For the others, ASEAN, group of small powers, could not have an enormous control over the big ones. Despite the continuous debates on who to lead in this new regional structure, the agenda for cooperation in the regional sense had continued. Meanwhile, some claimed that the acceptability of ASEAN to remain as the driver in this regionalism was long anchored on its being neutral. This neutrality was situated from the ASEAN’s way of harmonious decision – making. Bibliography: Association of Southeast Asian Nations. “Overview.” Last modified 2011. Acharya, A. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: Asean and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge, 2001. Auer, J. E., and R. Lim. “The Maritime Basis of American Security in East Asia.” Naval War College Review 54 (1) (2001): 39-58. Carlson, A. R.,“Constructing the Dragon's Scales: China's Approach to Territorial Sovereignty and Border Relations in the 1980s and 1990s.” The Journal of Contemporary China 12 (37) (2003): 677-98. Chang, F. K. “Beyond the Unipolar Moment: Beijing's Reach in the South China Sea.” Orbis 40 (3) (1996): 353-74. Cossa, R. A. Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict. Honolulu, Hawaii: Pacific Forum CSIS Dibb, P. “The Strategic Environment in the Asia-Pacific Region." in America's Asian Alliances. R. D. Blackwell and P. Dibb (eds.), 1-17. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2000. Jae-hyung, L. "China's Expanding Maritime Ambitions in the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean." Contemporary Southeast Asia 24 (3) (2002): 549-68. Ong, D. and B.A. Hamzah. "Disputed Maritime Boundaries and Claims to Offshore Territories in the Asia Pacific Region." In Calming the Waters: Initiatives for Asia Pacific Maritime Cooperation. S. Bateman and S. Bates (eds.), 25-41. Canberra: Australian National University, 1996. Peou, S. “Realism and Constructivism in Southeast Asian Security Studies.” The Pacific Review 15 (1) (2002): 119-38. Searight, A. “Asian Regionalism: New Challenges, New Visions, Pedestrian Progress.” Pacific Forum Issues and Insights 10(12). Honolulu, Hawaii, May 2010 Storey, I. J. “Creeping Assertiveness: China, the Philippines and the South China Sea Dispute.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 21 (1) (1999): 95-118 Read More