ASEAN: Communicate! Now!

The last week of February saw SEA’s information ministers gathering in Kuala Lumpur. The resulting media statement includes the following:

“The Chairman in his opening statement highlighted that ASEAN should leverage on the popularity of social media that would keep it current and relevant as a disseminator of information. He expressed his view that the Information Ministers should re-look their engagement through new media and the social network, especially with the younger generation, otherwise they may not be able to play an effective role in promoting ASEAN awareness or building the ASEAN Community… Appreciating the need to implement a comprehensive communications plan to meet the vision of One ASEAN Community by 2015, the Ministers directed a technical working group to study the immediate communications need and recommend an effective communications plan, using media channels that are available in Member States. It is envisioned that this plan will promote a clearer understanding on what One ASEAN Community means for the entire region and its peoples… [emphasis mine]”

It would be hard to overemphasize the importance of this task. Last week in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, I had the opportunity to meet a number of academics, and discuss these issues with three classes of students, undergraduate and postgraduate.

Time after time from the academics came the complaint that ASEAN is still – despite all its efforts – far too remote from the ordinary people of SEA.

Many of the region’s citizens have too much of a struggle with daily needs to have time to acquaint themselves with an esoteric topic such as ASEAN.

But even the middle classes know too little about it, and about what it means for them. As one academic put it, it is Tony Fernandes who has done most for the idea of an ASEAN community. AirAsia’s facilitation of cheap flights makes the rest of SEA more accessible – at least for some. It therefore represents a very palpable bridging of gaps.

But while the regional vision is clear and bright for the high flyers in the ASEAN Business Club, it still needs to percolate down to the small businesses who struggle to understand what an ASEAN Economic Community might have to offer them.

As an economics researcher in Singapore told me, generalities are not enough – people in the shoe industry (for example) need to know precisely how Community plans will affect shoes and the components that go into shoes. A monumental information campaign is necessary if people are to start to see what community-building offers them and their businesses.

The ASEAN Secretariat also reported last week on a youth seminar in Indonesia. Addressing the event, ASEAN Deputy Secretary-General Bagas Hapsoro noted the importance of such events, as they provided platforms for young people “to play a leading role in realising the ASEAN Community by 2015”. He went on to say that young people “need to unite to create a strong network with other young people from all aspects of life so they can consequently reach mutual understanding and boost regional cooperation... [and] suggested that enhancing policy advocacy activities would lay the foundation for the youth’s voices to be heard by their governments, parliaments, and business people.” 

Truly, the moment is now. Interestingly, the Indonesian undergraduates I talked to were still largely open to ASEAN, and still prepared to give it a chance. The postgraduates, on the other hand, had already learnt to be much more sceptical. Youth enthusiasm can very quickly turn to disappointment if elements of real progress (or at least good reasons why that progress is elusive) are not very clearly communicated to them.

Young people need not only to know more about what they can realistically expect from ASEAN and what ASEAN is actually doing – because I find there are still a lot of misconceptions and knowledge gaps out there – but also to know how they can learn and contribute.

One undergraduate asked me, “What do we have to do to communicate with ASEAN?” I reeled off a few web addresses – regional civil society organizations (which, incidentally, have produced some excellent training programmes on how to deal with ASEAN), the ASEAN Secretariat, the ASEAN Foundation – but I’m hard pressed to cite a one-stop shop that can link up young people interested in learning about ASEAN’s regional vision.

I would love to know that such a thing is out there, and I’ve just missed it – so if you know of good “ways in” to ASEAN for young people, please get in contact.

I truly think this is a pivotal moment for ASEAN publicity, outreach, and youth engagement. If we can’t draw in educated young people and small businesses now, the ASEAN Community that is projected for 2015 will really struggle to get airborne.

Green shoots? -- pick of the fortnight

• Asia Sentinel has a slightly more positive round-up of recent events in Thailand than many I’ve seen lately (9 Mar). The report concludes: “There is plenty to be concerned about. Eventually, the harshness of the lese majeste laws, the military’s dominance of the political process and concerns that somehow the government will engineer Thaksin’s return could trigger more of the kind of trouble that has characterized far too much of the country’s political sphere. The mai pen rai (Don’t worry, it’s okay) attitude that characterizes the country, to take the easy option and ignore problems, could once again result in lack of will to put flood control infrastructure in place. But the feeling is that for now, mai pen rai will prevail despite the gradual disintegration of the arrangements that have kept Thai politics relatively stable since the 2011 election. Thailand needs it.”
• A New York Times report notes that Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi is increasingly “being asked to propose solutions to her country’s woes rather than merely lament them” (7 Mar). Fears are being expressed that she will tarnish her reputation in the rough-and-tumble of day-to-day politics. But as I’ve observed before, this is a trade-off that all SEA’s activists have had to come to terms with. It’s never an easy choice or combination. But we need good people who can build as well as good people who can scourge.
• Still on Myanmar, Nicolas Farrelly (8 Mar) notes that this is not the time to be watching “for unambiguous signs that change is irreversible and that the military has surrendered political power for good”. Rather, he warns: “Instead of a final resolution of Burma’s problems it is conceivable that changes will remain incremental, erratic and somewhat opaque… Meanwhile there is much to be gained by increasing our awareness of the changes that are occurring and by accepting Burma’s new government as a normal part of the Southeast Asian political landscape. This is the time when Burmese authorities, businesses and individuals are actively seeking partners from around the world to assist with the challenges ahead. There are still reasons to doubt and fret, but the time is ripe for action and involvement.” Hear, hear...
• Malaysia has been rated “the safest country in Southeast Asia and 19th in the world” (8 Mar). This is interesting, because it certainly doesn’t square with the many, many warnings I’ve been given by concerned locals since moving to Malaysia in November last year… Is the discrepancy just due to a perception lag, or to something more complex?
• The website for the upcoming ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN People’s Forum is here. This will be one to watch in terms of gauging the nature of Cambodia’s ASEAN chairmanship.
• “Singapore will be contributing $50 million over the next four years to an Asean initiative to narrow the divide within the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean)…The amount will be given from this year till 2015, and will bring Singapore's total contribution to IAI [Initiative for ASEAN Integration] to $170 million [6 Mar]”. And – Singapore’s domestic workers are to be given a day off.
• The election season is underway in Timor Leste. There are useful backgrounders here and here.

Pick of the fortnight: Powers, ASEAN, and Myanmar

• ISEAS has launched the quarterly Monitor, a socio-political survey of Southeast Asia – a welcome addition to the regional updates.
• In an interesting interview, ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan welcomes the new US engagement in SEA and in Asia more broadly. Asked whether this is “not a move by the US to contain China”, he offers a good summing up: “I think less so than the fact that the world would like to be reassured that this region is going to remain stable, peaceful and prosperous. I think the American attitude is that with less commitment and less involvement in the Middle East, they must look to where there are potential areas of instability that could affect the global economic recovery. When they look around for where best to go for global trade and investment to help them out of their own economic crisis, it’s got to be East Asia. It’s ASEAN. So their new pivot towards us is understandable. But what we don’t want is anyone coming in and bringing tension or confrontation. Everybody, including the US, is welcome on the basis of openness and fairness. To ensure that happens, ASEAN must learn to be a balancing mechanism, a fulcrum, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, of regional cooperation.”
• Joshua Ho, however, warns of the danger of “overstretching” the notion of ASEAN centrality, “especially if ASEAN states start to adopt an ‘inward-looking, it-is-all-about-ASEAN mentality’…  In light of the increasingly complex and multifaceted nature of global challenges, the tendency and temptation for ASEAN to look inwards and close in on itself will grow… The Bali Concord III which was signed last November by ASEAN leaders must not be used to justify an overly ASEAN-centric view of the world. Indeed such an outcome would paralyse the region whose very growth was founded upon its diverse and dynamic relationships its member states have with the wider world… [T]o what extent ASEAN is able to maintain its global engagement while at the same time keeping its own house in order will be a critical test of its readiness – and relevance – as a regional stakeholder.”
• And, a propos of powers and order more generally, Robert Ayson has a great piece at The Interpreter (21 Feb) on the kinds of common values we need “if the coming international order is going to be genuinely orderly”. These are values like accommodation, respectfulness, peacefulness, responsibility, and restraint – and they need to be stressed and promoted by all the powers in the region, large and small. The longer version is well worth reading.
• The ASEAN Secretariat reports that in a meeting on 17-19 February, the members of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) “discussed and agreed on the structure and the elements” of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD), and “also agreed on the framework for discussion of the draft AHRD”. It notes: “The AICHR has received inputs from civil society groups on the AHRD. AICHR plans to hold regional consultations on the AHRD in the coming months to encourage more inputs.” This will be welcome, in light of criticism that too little consultation has taken place to date. Not surprisingly, achieving consensus on this issue is going to be difficult. But ASEAN has been here before. Incrementally, painfully – but still productively, I would argue – they manage to find a way forward. It may not be fast. It may not be ideal. But it is moving in the right direction. In the next round of debate and struggle, it’s important not to lose sight of how far the region has come in the last 10-20 years.
• Reuters reported last week (15 Feb) that “Myanmar's government expects to reach ceasefire deals with all of the country's ethnic minority rebel armies within three months,” citing Aung Min, the minister responsible for negotiating an end to the conflict. It’s an interesting report – let’s hope he’s right.
• Considering the huge changes that have taken place in Myanmar recently, Trevor Wilson, a former Australian ambassador to that country, notes: “Now the challenge for all concerned—Burmese and non-Burmese alike—is to manage the thaw better than they managed the freeze. The West can respond by gradually easing sanctions, as Australia has already begun to do, but very few countries have so far committed to this. Easing of sanctions should be done in a positive and generous manner, rather than with a grudging distrustful mindset, and without ‘moving the goalposts’. Aid donors should focus on how new international assistance can help the people of Burma make up for the years of deprivation and ensure that reforms, by virtue of their success, are irreversible.”

Two blogs that do it well...

A propos of my last post, here are two examples to emulate, one from an individual, one from a team:


Edmund Sim’s ASEAN Economic Community Blog offers a lawyer’s view on ASEAN’s big economic project. It’s informative, and offers a perspective that is refreshingly different.

Asian Trends Monitoring has a blog to complement the thoughtfully compiled and superbly presented research they do on pro-poor, pro-development issues.

Both of these are well worth a look.

On academics and blogging

The Lowy Interpreter currently has a bit of a debate going on the topic of academics and blogging.

The central question is why academics, especially in Australia, blog so little. Respondents have suggested several reasons: lack of time, too much institutional focus on the peer-reviewed track, lack of comfort with a medium that often seems geared to quick-fire ideas rather than carefully considered output, and so on.

I identify to a certain extent with all of these (especially the time thing…), but I’d like to suggest a couple more, based on my brief experience doing SEAview.

Firstly, some of us are still fundamentally ambivalent about profile, and find it hard to predict the ratio between time expenditure and returns. In other words, we think we have something to contribute, and we want to be heard, but we’re not sure what level of visibility to realistically aim for. Clearly, we don’t want to be invisible, or what’s the point? But there is a lot of work involved in becoming highly visible – and then in managing that visibility. For example, to really get the most out of your blog (in terms of feedback and conversation-starting), you need to build a presence (linking to Facebook, Twitter, newspaper articles, etc). Or you need to organize to work as part of a team. All this requires even more investment from those limited supplies of time and energy already mentioned – which is why, in my case, it hasn’t been done. How much do you invest when the return is uncertain?

Then there’s the question of stance. In an academic environment, I guess most of us are not particularly used to being pundits. Of course, all lecturers and tutors have a particular line – there’s no such thing as totally objective teaching. But students are not there to hear a political sermon. They want to be exposed to the map of ideas that politically, historically, and culturally contextualizes a particular debate – in other words, they want the tools and scaffolding to form their own opinions, not a weekly digest of the lecturer’s or tutor’s opinions. I’m not saying you can’t do this kind of spectrum-mapping exercise via blog posts. But it’s not easy.

And finally there’s the whole big question of how to blog well. I’m very aware that my own blog has oscillated between opinion pieces and updates, and between long discussions and short comments. The opinion pieces are inspired by those aaaaaargh moments, while the updates stem from the practical consideration that a blog can kill two birds with one stone by providing another way to manage updates... There probably shouldn’t be this variation. The blog should probably pick a style and stick to it...

Ideas, anyone?

Why do bad ideas last so long?

At one time, it was common to compare ASEAN with the EU. Scholars and practitioners then started disputing such simple comparisons, so the trend was questioned, and the academic commentary (largely) moderated. But the invidious comparisons were still alive, as I’ve already noted, at least until very recently. What had already been nuanced in the literature was still starkly there in the classrooms of Southeast Asia. And despite Europe’s current woes, I’d not like to bet the comparisons won’t resurface once the dust has settled, and a new way forward has been found. Europe has a powerful propaganda machine, after all.

“Failed” states, that’s another one. There have been plenty of critiques, from academics and practitioners, of the deficiencies of this concept. Yet here we have UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, just yesterday, referring to Somalia as “the world’s most failed state”. Yes, Somalia faces a heap of problems. But is this the best standpoint from which to address them? As Gerry van Klinken and Joshua Barker so rightly point out (page 5), “A language of failure does not help us much to understand why things work the way they do.”

We could go on. The disparaging ideas that animated colonialism have long been discredited. Yet my email updates only today noted how they still found their way quite explicitly into an extraordinary speech by French President Nicholas Sarkozy in 2007. And many of the same assumptions – along the lines that we, rather than you, know the best way to do things, and we will force you to do them if necessary – still linger close to the surface in many of the world’s current debates.

And what is usually called the “essentialist” approach to culture and identity – the notion that these things are fixed, bounded, innate, and immutable – has been refuted almost ad infinitum, but it is still alive and well in everyday political talk, from ideas of the “clash of civilizations” to the ways ethnicity is discussed in many places in Southeast Asia.

Creators and formulators and disseminators of ideas bear a huge responsibility. The starkest formulations of those ideas will still be out there, doing damage, long after subsequent debate has nuanced their contours, and moved them on…

Good news pick of the fortnight

As the Rabbit yields to the Dragon, the focus this week is on good news – or at least, less bad news.

• Kavi presents a more upbeat assessment of Cambodia’s potential as Chair of ASEAN (16 Jan). He notes its capacity “to reset the grouping's global standing and relations with all of its powerful dialogue partners”, and focuses on three areas in in which Cambodia can take the lead: narrowing the development gap; ensuring “that ASEAN will not become a pawn in the major powers’ competition”; and promoting cooperation within the Lower Mekong Initiative.
• Reports by Goldman Sachs and HSBC sparked upbeat headlines about the Philippines’ economic trajectory. “Philippines to leapfrog to be 16th largest economy by 2050” (13 Jan) and “Philippines may become key global growth driver” (16 Jan) are two such. Such predictions of good things to come have been made before, of course, and Michael Alan Hamlin examines whether anything might be different this time (25 Jan).
• And Myanmar keeps churning out the surprises, including a ceasefire with the Karen National Union and the release of further political prisoners. President Thein Sein has even given an interview (20 Jan).There may, of course, still be unpleasant surprises ahead, but Nicholas Farrelly (16 Jan) writes that “right now my very strong impression is that we need to give Burma’s decision-makers the full benefit of the doubt. Somebody, somewhere is doing their best to demonstrate goodwill. They are hoping that the world takes notice.” As he points out, the next top priority should be trying to forge peace with the Kachin Independence Army. Andrew Selth (24 Jan) offers a useful assessment of advances so far and challenges to come.
• Intriguingly, former diplomat David Brown (21 Jan) reports that “hopes of a deal between China and Vietnam are rising in the South China Sea”. Probably best not to hold our breath – nevertheless: “Eight months after trading threats, China and Vietnam are now huddled in negotiations over the northern section of the South China Sea, an expanse that no other nations claim.” This initiative could only be part of the solution to what is a much more convoluted problem, but a pragmatic step forward would be a useful precedent.
• And The Star (23 Jan) notes: “Malaysia and Indonesia have agreed on a permanent regional secretariat to look into issues of sustainable marine development, resources management, research and development projects and income improvement of coastal communities between the two countries.” OK, a secretariat is not exciting news, but it’s way better than some of the headlines on maritime and border issues we’ve seen between Indonesia and Malaysia in recent years.