Auspicious start: A signing ceremony at the very first Asean meeting in Bangkok in August, 1967, attended by Malaysia’s then deputy prime minister Tun Abdul Razak (second from right). Since then, Asean’s promise has necessitated due respect for each member’s national sovereignty. — Thailand Foreign Affairs Ministry/AFP
AFTER half a century, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) had determined the region’s strategic architecture. By 2025, Asean has also shaped the region’s landscape and furniture.
This development is a natural consequence of Asean’s growth. However, complacency, indifference and ignorance about Asean and its invaluable contributions to regional peace, security and prosperity remain the downsides.
Post-independence South-East Asia needed a workable organisation to promote cooperation and avoid conflict. But what form should it take?
Except for Thailand, the region had been colonised by Western powers or Imperial Japan, often both. Since colonisation usurped local authority, nation building was never a priority to the colonisers while nationalism and regionalism were threats.
The colonial powers skewed social development through divide-and-rule and stunted economic development through pillage and uneven development. In the Philippines, Luzon in the north is still more developed than the central Visayas or southern Mindanao regions.
West Malaysia is more developed than East Malaysia, and West Malaysia’s west coast is more developed than its east coast. British Malaya dealt heavily with British India in administration and trade, so fundamental logistics meant greater development of the west coast with Singapore.
In the mid-20th century’s decolonisation era, South-East Asia became a region of “emerging” sovereign nations. But official political independence without equivalent economic independence limited national sovereignty, as long as the global economy remained dominated by the former colonial powers.
During the Cold War, the US created an Asian military alliance based on Nato. The South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (Seato, 1954-77) was an enlargement of the US military alliance with the Philippines, Washington’s former colony.
The other members were Australia, Britain, France, New Zealand, Pakistan and Thailand. Since Thailand and the Philippines hosted US military bases, they were obliged to join Seato.
With only these two South-East Asian countries as members, Seato lacked credibility from the start. Declining interest even among members by the 1970s made its dissolution inevitable.
The rest of the region including Malaysia were unwilling to return to a Western-dominated sphere after independence. Seato was formed before Malayan independence and remained for a decade and more after Asean and Malaysia were established, with much of South-East Asia staying indifferent to it.
Yet the common need for a neutral and truly regional association remained. South-East Asia’s initial attempts at forming its own organisation were however unsuccessful, despite several attempts.
In July 1961 the Philippines, Thailand and Malaya considered the Association of South-East Asia (Asa). But since Manila and Bangkok remained steadfast US allies, Asa’s neutrality was questionable while the trio lacked heft.Asa tried to be a nucleus for a wider regional grouping. But with Indonesia as the region’s biggest country and economy staying away, Asa’s days were numbered.
In July 1963 the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaya then considered a Maphilindo (Malaya-Philippines-Indonesia) confederation. Manila and Jakarta appeared generous in placing Malaya first in the joint acronym.
However, the Philippines and Indonesia had been trying to forestall the union of Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore to form Malaysia. President Diosdado Macapagal officially claimed Sabah in 1962, while President Sukarno launched a confrontational war (konfrontasi) against Malaya in January 1963.
When Malayan leaders saw Maphilindo as a means to undermine Malaysia on the eve of its establishment, Kuala Lumpur dumped the project. The need for a viable regional organisation remained, and the search for it continued.
South-East Asia in the mid-1960s was a region weighed down by pessimism and uncertainty about its own future. Several countries were saddled with domestic insurgencies, but these internal challenges were overshadowed by cross-border disputes between fledgling sovereign nations threatening greater instability.
Following Malaysia’s formation in 1963, internal disagreements between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore led to a split in 1965. Mutual suspicions and unpleasant sentiments flared, while the disputes that Indonesia and the Philippines had with Malaysia lingered and festered.
With Sukarno’s ouster by early 1967, a rare opportunity arose for much-needed regional change. Watching closely throughout was Thailand, the country least involved in these regional disputes.
Bangkok swiftly grasped this rare and valuable opportunity for a regional reset. Thai Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman convened an urgent meeting with his four regional counterparts in August 1967, and the resulting Bangkok Declaration became the basis of Asean.
Since then, Asean’s promise has necessitated due respect for each member’s national sovereignty. This means consultation to build consensus and non-interference in one another’s internal affairs – key ingredients for Asean as the region’s “Goldilocks” association.
Today, Asean resilience covers the shared aspirations of peace and stability for security with prosperity for South-East Asia and beyond. Through such universally respected, Asean-led institutions as the Asean Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, Asean continues to evolve and grow.
As before, the implicit need for neutrality and non-alignment constitutes both the character and the central priority of modern South-East Asia.
Bunn Nagara is Director and Senior Fellow at the BRI Caucus for Asia-Pacific, and an Honorary Fellow at the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely his own.
