Amitav Acharya

Oxford University Press: 2000188 pages

Amitav Acharya is (was??) Deputy Director and Head of Research at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies of Singapore, where he also holds a professorship.

Prior to his appointment he was Professor of Political Science at York University (Toronto) and Fellow of the Center for Business and Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

He has been a Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and a Fellow of the Harvard University Asia Center, and taught at the National University of Singapore, Sydney University. Acharya has written extensively on Asia Pacific security issues.

He is currently a Senior Fellow of the Asia Pacific Policy Program of the John F. Kennedy of Government and a member of the Eminent Persons/Expert Group of the Asean Regional Forum.

What’s this book about?It examines… the origins of SEA’s regional state-systemthe complex relationship between

nationalism, regionalism and the Cold War international order

the evolution of SEAsian regionalism

It analyses…the emergence of the concept of “One SEA”

in the post Cold War period

It critically assesses…the continuing validity of SEA as a region in

the face of intra-regional conflicts, the clash of national identities and the impact of economic globalisation.

Chapter 1--- Imagining Southeast AsiaChapter 2---Nationalism, Regionalism and

the Cold War OrderChapter 3---The Evolution of Regional

OrganisationChapter 4--- SEA Divided: Polarisation and

Reconciliation Chapter 5---- Managing “One SEA”Conclusion

Pre-colonial commerce and colonial rule in regional system.

Colonialism disrupted SEA’s traditional political, cultural and commercial linkages.

The emergence of geopolitical notion of SEA during and in the immediate aftermath of WWII.

The impact of the Cold War international order on intra-regional relations and the evolution of regional organisation geared to the management of regional conflict.

At the beginning of the post WWII period, while efforts to restore SEA’s cultural unity and regional coherence had begun, its political future as a region appeared highly uncertain, the Japanese conquest of SEA and entitites such as the Southeast Asia Command attracted international attention to the region and laid the basis of a regional geopolitical framework that had never existed during the colonial period. The advent of the Cold War furthered the development of this framework.

But such sources of a regional international order in SEA were largely inspired by external events and forces. There was little in the form of an internal making of SEA. To make matters worse, initial efforts to create a SEA regional identity through cooperation were minimal and unsuccessful.

The IR of SEA in the 1950s and 1960s were deeply influenced by a complex interaction between 3 fundamental forces:

1)Nationalism2)The Nature of Decolonisation Process3)The Advent of the Cold War

Nationalism has spurred a search for self-reliance and autonomy. However, in reality, the weakness of the nation-state and intra-regional nationalisms, served to create a regional pattern of international relations in SEA which was largely domainated by external powers and influences.

Superpower rivalry gradually replaced colonialism as the chief determinant of international affairs in the region.

The newly independent states were too weak and disorganised to override these external constraints and great power intervention.

Attempts to develop regional solutions to regional problems faltered due to existing suspicions and rivalries among SEA states as well as their continued dependence on external security guarantees.

Obstacles to regionalism include: The tendency among SEAsian leaders to

advance proposals for regional cooperation for domestic and foreign political effect

Persistence of intra-regional antagonismsImpact of the Cold War in polarising national

foreign policy posturesDifferences in basic economic policy among

regional countries

However, by the mid 1960s, with declining ability of the Western powers, Britain and the US to maintain their security umbrella in the region, the non-communist states of SEA had to look to themselves (become self-reliant) to develop a collective political resistance to communism.

ASEAN regionalism came to represent an imagined community underpinned by its own organising myths and principles. From the very outset, its leaders recognised the importance of regional identity-building.

The objective of preserving national identities should be reconciled with the development of regional existence.

ASEAN is also a framework for providing regional solutions to regional problems.

This quest of regional autonomy was initially shaped by a concern pravalent in the Cold War period, that regional conflicts not managed at regional level would invite intervention by outside powers.

However, Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in the 1970s marked an end to prospects of a single SEAsian regional entity based on an inclusive form of regionalism. The ensuing ASEAN Indochina rivalry, featuring ASEAN’s campaign to drive Vietnam out of Cambodia, led to the further polarisation of SEA--- a division which would persist through the 1980s.

For SEA, the end of the regional Cold War came with the Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia which culminated in the May 1993 Cambodian elections. It became obvious that Vietnam was no longer a significant security concern for the ASEAN states.

In Dec 1989, an agreement was signed by the Malaysian government, the Thai government and the Communist Party of Malaysia, which ended the over 40-year guerilla struggle to overthrow the Malayan/ Malaysian government. This preceeded the collapse of the Communist Party of Thailand, followed by the decline of the Communist New People’s Army in the Philippines. Thus ended the threat of communist subversion in the region which itself had contributed to the intra-regional polarisation of SEA.

These developments secured for the SEA a greater and more positive international recognition than was the case during the 1970s, which had been dominated by the Vietnam War and myraid internal revolts.

While the decade of the 1980s had begun with SEA projecting the image of a region divided, the rhetorical quest for “One Southeast Asia” became the organising slogan for the region in the 1990s.

Challenges to the regional concept of SEA in the post-Cold War era fall into 3 categories:

1)intra-regional problems , both old and new, affected political unity among the ASEAN countries and worsened existing differentiation among them in terms of domestic politics and foreign policy;

2)SEA’s closer interdependence and integration with the wider Asia Pacific region. Of particular significance here was ASEAN’s involvement in Asia Pacific multilateral institution (ARF, APEC…);

3)Impact of economic globalisation. Globalisation not only affected the “regionness” of SEA, but differing responses to globalisation became a source of discord among the states of the region. The negative impact of globalisation, as manifested through the economic crisis plaguing the region since mid-1997, also exposed the precarious dependence of SEA countries on external forces and called into question their professed aspirations for regional autonomy.

The key argument in this book has been that as with nationalism and nation-states, regions may be “imagined”, designed, constructed and even defended.

But just as the nation-state cannot be viable without a sense of nationalism, regions cannot be regions without a sense of regionalism.

For much of the post-Second World War period, the idea of one SEA has been consciously nurtured by regional elites. It has been altered, reinvented and managed to suit the exigencies of shifting external political, economic and strategic currents. SEA has been an imaged community during much of its recent past. It may well continue to do so in the future, provided there continues to exist a strong measure of collective political will on the part of SEA states and societies to adapt the regional concept to changing external and domestic circumstances, including the forces of globalisation.

Refreshing because most studies of SEA deals with the constituent parts and not the region as a whole

Integrates history and political scienceLots of FOOTNOTES!

ASEAN not shown itself as a competent regional institution (no major accomplishments)

ASEAN countries compete more than they cooperate (national interest before regional interest)

Nationalism is not declining SEA but more powerful after 9/11

Regions cannot imagine until nations can imagine

Happy Lunar New Year!