Should Asean go the way of the EU?

The Edinburgh Journal

Nazry Bahrawi
Saturday 18 April 2009, journal-online.co.uk

RARE are high-level meetings of minds ever hijacked or world leaders evacuated en masse. Yet this happened in mid April (Apr 12) at the island resort of Pattaya in Thailand after supporters of its ousted former leader Thaksin Shinawatra over-ran a regional summit.

That Thailand saw red is regrettable. But there is more to this than a mere domestic political dispute. At stake is the viability of the regional grouping known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for instance, had expressed disappointment that the Asean Summit had to be cancelled.

Perhaps what the grouping sorely needs is a shadow cabinet that is not beholden to any member state’s interests.

This could certainly enhance Asean integration especially when it comes to cross-border spats. A case in point is the Preah Vihear Temple spat between Cambodia and Thailand. The standoff between troops from both sides that began last year culminated in the death of three Thai soldiers after shooting broke off at the borders where the temple is situated. Even as Asean is plagued by such bilateral spats, it needs to rise above cross-border spats within the grouping.

In the past, such disputes were settled at international institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Security Council. But seeking outside intervention may not always work for Asean. Although the ICJ has ruled in 1962 that the temple belongs to Cambodia, Thailand has till today not fully accepted this decision.

If spats could be solved internally, then a shadow cabinet could possibly make Asean even stronger. After all, the idea of a shadow cabinet is not untested. The European Union (EU) – hailed by Asean leaders as a model for regional integration – has such a set-up in the form of the European Commission.

In a sea of competing national interests, the EU’s 27 commissioners - who mirror ministers in a national government - is the only body “paid to think European”, as the Commission’s secretary-general Catherine Day once described it.

Learning from their European counterpart, should Asean embrace a similar institution to think Asean?

Doing so would mean re-configuring the grouping’s founding pillar of non-interference of internal politicking from other states. After all, unstable domestic politics is fast emerging as a challenge in some of Asean’s member states such as Malaysia, Myanmar and most importantly, Thailand that is currently chair of the grouping.

In the EU, member states’ interests are forwarded through the Council of European Union whose members represent governments. Along with members of the European Parliament (akin to parliamentarians representing the European peoples), they provide some form of check and balance by voting on proposals made by the European Commission.

Asean may also find another aspect of the EU model useful – that is, a strong Secretariat. It made good progress last year by adopting a Charter that accords more resources to its Secretariat. For instance, it now has four – instead of two –Deputy Secretary-Generals.

But Asean also needs to address what is perceived as a serious lack of leadership and political vision. Who is in charge? Its chair or the Secretary-General?

Cracks may already be showing. In June 2008, for instance, then Asean chair Singapore quickly issued a statement to distance the grouping away from a comment by Secretary-General Dr Surin Pitsuwan who had expressed interest to know more about Mr Rudd’s suggestion for an Asia Pacific grouping.

In its push for greater integration, Asean may do well to consider beefing up Dr Surin’s role to one that goes beyond lobbying members to certain causes. And to do so is perhaps to hold an election for the post. Until that day, the eloquent Dr Surin - and his successors – certainly needs to brace for more "clarifications" from future Asean chairs.