Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS Newsletter
Other Research
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Alumni & Networks
Alumni
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
Commentaries
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
IDSS Paper
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
RSIS Publications for the Year
Glossary of Abbreviations
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
External Publications for the Year
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
Media
2024 Indonesia Elections
Great Powers
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
Media Mentions
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Future Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSIS Newsletter
      Other ResearchScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to Apply
      Financial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      AlumniAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)SRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersCommentariesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsIDSS PaperInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking PapersRSIS Publications for the Year
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-EdsExternal Publications for the Year
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      2024 Indonesia ElectionsGreat PowersSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesMedia Mentions
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO08077 | Is the ASEAN Charter Necessary?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO08077 | Is the ASEAN Charter Necessary?
    Barry Desker

    17 July 2008

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    As the annual ASEAN foreign ministers meeting convenes starting this week (July 17-24), one key issue expected to come under the spotlight is the ASEAN Charter. Has the Charter lived up to expectations since its adoption in Singapore last year?

    ASEAN’s achievements have led many analysts of the grouping to praise the ASEAN Charter adopted by the region’s Heads of Government at their annual summit in Singapore on 20 November 2007. Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan is confident that the landmark charter aimed at giving ASEAN a legal framework was likely to be fully ratified next month. Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam have so far ratified the charter, while Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand are in the process of doing so.

    The Charter is significant as it provides ASEAN with a legal framework after forty years of gradual institutionalisation. It establishes a set of rules and the new structures should strengthen the bloc’s institutions through the formal role accorded to the ASEAN Summits as well as the establishment of ASEAN Communities comprising the ASEAN Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

    The ASEAN Charter is a positive development; it moves ASEAN ahead. But it is a disappointment. ASEAN was at a crossroads, but with the adoption of the ASEAN Charter, the 10-member grouping decided to codify existing norms and maintain its historical identity as an inter-governmental organisation. ASEAN did less than it could have done. In fact in some areas, ASEAN had even gone backwards.

    The question arises whether ASEAN needed a charter or whether its energies would have been better spent on increasing functional cooperation among its members.

    Myanmar’s role in ASEAN

    Even if it is believed that ASEAN institutionalisation would be strengthened by the creation of a legal entity, the participation of Myanmar in the adoption of the ASEAN Charter has undermined this effort.

    The September 2007 crackdown on demonstrators by the Myanmar junta and its tardy response to the May 2008 Cyclone Nargis fiasco highlighted the negative impact of Myanmar’s behaviour on perceptions of ASEAN.

    However, Myanmar’s continuing presence in ASEAN’s chambers ensures that the traditional emphasis on non-interference and the sovereignty of states will be upheld by ASEAN. Within ASEAN, Myanmar also benefits from an informal coalition of the newer members – Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos – which continue to emphasise these principles.

    The ASEAN Way of the lowest common denominator

    The decision to adopt the “ASEAN Way”, which prioritises agreement by consensus and the adoption of the lowest common denominator, undercut the forward-looking approach taken by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) appointed by the ASEAN leaders, who took a bold and visionary approach to strengthen ASEAN. Although it is claimed that ASEAN will increasingly be a rules-based organisation, there is no assurance that ASEAN compliance with its rules will be any better than its practice during the preceding forty years when only 30% of ASEAN agreements were implemented.

    A second issue of concern is that despite a series of three meetings before the 2007 ASEAN Summit, no agreement was reached on the terms of reference for an ASEAN human rights body, even though there is a provision to establish such a body in the Charter. It is likely that the terms of reference which will be adopted at the annual ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting, which starts this week (July 17-24) will result in “a body which, while lacking in teeth, will at least have a tongue, and a tongue will have its uses”, to quote the Foreign Minister of Singapore George Yeo.

    The third deficiency of the Charter is the most critical.

    Previously, ASEAN economic ministers had adopted the practice of allowing member states to agree on economic liberalisation agreements on the basis of the “10 minus x principle” or ‘2 plus x’. This allowed those members that wished to embark on cooperative initiatives at a pace faster than the rest of the grouping to proceed. However, in the new Charter, the “ASEAN minus-x formula” and other formulae for flexible participation only operate when there is a consensus to do so. This is a retrograde step because it gives each member a veto on new initiatives or new directions for regional cooperation.

    One note-worthy development is the decision to formalise the role of the ASEAN Summit, which shall be the supreme policy-making body of ASEAN and shall meet twice a year. The Charter also provides for an ASEAN Coordinating Council comprising the foreign ministers which shall meet twice a year. This provision was not part of the EPG Report which envisaged the three ministers handling security, economic and socio-cultural issues reporting directly to the ASEAN Summit. It is likely that this decision reflected the wishes of foreign ministry policy-makers who sought to claw back the authority to decide the future direction of ASEAN.

    The emphasis on bureaucratic dominance of the ASEAN machinery is also seen in the lack of oversight and governance by elected representatives of ASEAN states. Instead of empowering the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA), the ASEAN Charter has given no formal role for it.

    The Charter provides for the appointment of two additional Deputy Secretaries-General openly recruited based on merit. However, no additional budget was provided. In fact, each member state makes an equal contribution pegged on the scale for the lowest contributor. The result is that it will be very difficult to build an effective secretariat and to recruit staff on a globally competitive basis.

    ASEAN: A diplomatic community

    What does the long process of consultations leading to the adoption of the ASEAN Charter and the resulting document that falls short of some expectations tell us about ASEAN?

    The outcome demonstrates that ASEAN remains a diplomatic community. It has been very effective in preventing inter-state war in Southeast Asia and increasing mutual confidence among the governments of the region. The significance of this should not be under-estimated. During the Cold War, the ASEAN region was a cockpit of conflict. There were fears of falling dominos from the Vietnam War and later, the possibility of the conflict in Cambodia spilling-over into the region. By contrast, the risk of inter-state war in Southeast Asia has declined today.

    ASEAN’s conservative approach results from its practice of consensual decision-making. It is unlikely that ASEAN will move in the direction of the people-centred organisation envisaged in the EPG Report. Like the European Union (EU), there is a basic difficulty in reaching out to the peoples within the ASEAN states, even while policy-makers act on behalf of “the people”. Interestingly, however, unlike the EU, if the governments of Southeast Asia had held referendums on the adoption of the ASEAN Charter, the likelihood is that there would be strong popular support for Charter ratification.

    Trust in political leadership and support for foreign policy initiatives undertaken by their respective governments continues to characterise political debate in Southeast Asia. This is so even as the region’s governments are reluctant to allow public or civil society decision-making on ASEAN issues.

    About the Author

    Barry Desker is Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Regionalism and Multilateralism / East Asia and Asia Pacific

    Last updated on 08/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    As the annual ASEAN foreign ministers meeting convenes starting this week (July 17-24), one key issue expected to come under the spotlight is the ASEAN Charter. Has the Charter lived up to expectations since its adoption in Singapore last year?

    ASEAN’s achievements have led many analysts of the grouping to praise the ASEAN Charter adopted by the region’s Heads of Government at their annual summit in Singapore on 20 November 2007. Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan is confident that the landmark charter aimed at giving ASEAN a legal framework was likely to be fully ratified next month. Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam have so far ratified the charter, while Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand are in the process of doing so.

    The Charter is significant as it provides ASEAN with a legal framework after forty years of gradual institutionalisation. It establishes a set of rules and the new structures should strengthen the bloc’s institutions through the formal role accorded to the ASEAN Summits as well as the establishment of ASEAN Communities comprising the ASEAN Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.

    The ASEAN Charter is a positive development; it moves ASEAN ahead. But it is a disappointment. ASEAN was at a crossroads, but with the adoption of the ASEAN Charter, the 10-member grouping decided to codify existing norms and maintain its historical identity as an inter-governmental organisation. ASEAN did less than it could have done. In fact in some areas, ASEAN had even gone backwards.

    The question arises whether ASEAN needed a charter or whether its energies would have been better spent on increasing functional cooperation among its members.

    Myanmar’s role in ASEAN

    Even if it is believed that ASEAN institutionalisation would be strengthened by the creation of a legal entity, the participation of Myanmar in the adoption of the ASEAN Charter has undermined this effort.

    The September 2007 crackdown on demonstrators by the Myanmar junta and its tardy response to the May 2008 Cyclone Nargis fiasco highlighted the negative impact of Myanmar’s behaviour on perceptions of ASEAN.

    However, Myanmar’s continuing presence in ASEAN’s chambers ensures that the traditional emphasis on non-interference and the sovereignty of states will be upheld by ASEAN. Within ASEAN, Myanmar also benefits from an informal coalition of the newer members – Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos – which continue to emphasise these principles.

    The ASEAN Way of the lowest common denominator

    The decision to adopt the “ASEAN Way”, which prioritises agreement by consensus and the adoption of the lowest common denominator, undercut the forward-looking approach taken by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) appointed by the ASEAN leaders, who took a bold and visionary approach to strengthen ASEAN. Although it is claimed that ASEAN will increasingly be a rules-based organisation, there is no assurance that ASEAN compliance with its rules will be any better than its practice during the preceding forty years when only 30% of ASEAN agreements were implemented.

    A second issue of concern is that despite a series of three meetings before the 2007 ASEAN Summit, no agreement was reached on the terms of reference for an ASEAN human rights body, even though there is a provision to establish such a body in the Charter. It is likely that the terms of reference which will be adopted at the annual ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting, which starts this week (July 17-24) will result in “a body which, while lacking in teeth, will at least have a tongue, and a tongue will have its uses”, to quote the Foreign Minister of Singapore George Yeo.

    The third deficiency of the Charter is the most critical.

    Previously, ASEAN economic ministers had adopted the practice of allowing member states to agree on economic liberalisation agreements on the basis of the “10 minus x principle” or ‘2 plus x’. This allowed those members that wished to embark on cooperative initiatives at a pace faster than the rest of the grouping to proceed. However, in the new Charter, the “ASEAN minus-x formula” and other formulae for flexible participation only operate when there is a consensus to do so. This is a retrograde step because it gives each member a veto on new initiatives or new directions for regional cooperation.

    One note-worthy development is the decision to formalise the role of the ASEAN Summit, which shall be the supreme policy-making body of ASEAN and shall meet twice a year. The Charter also provides for an ASEAN Coordinating Council comprising the foreign ministers which shall meet twice a year. This provision was not part of the EPG Report which envisaged the three ministers handling security, economic and socio-cultural issues reporting directly to the ASEAN Summit. It is likely that this decision reflected the wishes of foreign ministry policy-makers who sought to claw back the authority to decide the future direction of ASEAN.

    The emphasis on bureaucratic dominance of the ASEAN machinery is also seen in the lack of oversight and governance by elected representatives of ASEAN states. Instead of empowering the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA), the ASEAN Charter has given no formal role for it.

    The Charter provides for the appointment of two additional Deputy Secretaries-General openly recruited based on merit. However, no additional budget was provided. In fact, each member state makes an equal contribution pegged on the scale for the lowest contributor. The result is that it will be very difficult to build an effective secretariat and to recruit staff on a globally competitive basis.

    ASEAN: A diplomatic community

    What does the long process of consultations leading to the adoption of the ASEAN Charter and the resulting document that falls short of some expectations tell us about ASEAN?

    The outcome demonstrates that ASEAN remains a diplomatic community. It has been very effective in preventing inter-state war in Southeast Asia and increasing mutual confidence among the governments of the region. The significance of this should not be under-estimated. During the Cold War, the ASEAN region was a cockpit of conflict. There were fears of falling dominos from the Vietnam War and later, the possibility of the conflict in Cambodia spilling-over into the region. By contrast, the risk of inter-state war in Southeast Asia has declined today.

    ASEAN’s conservative approach results from its practice of consensual decision-making. It is unlikely that ASEAN will move in the direction of the people-centred organisation envisaged in the EPG Report. Like the European Union (EU), there is a basic difficulty in reaching out to the peoples within the ASEAN states, even while policy-makers act on behalf of “the people”. Interestingly, however, unlike the EU, if the governments of Southeast Asia had held referendums on the adoption of the ASEAN Charter, the likelihood is that there would be strong popular support for Charter ratification.

    Trust in political leadership and support for foreign policy initiatives undertaken by their respective governments continues to characterise political debate in Southeast Asia. This is so even as the region’s governments are reluctant to allow public or civil society decision-making on ASEAN issues.

    About the Author

    Barry Desker is Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Regionalism and Multilateralism

    Last updated on 08/10/2014

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info