The Pathway to Regionalism: a Historical Sociological Analysis of ASEAN Economic Community*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Pathway to Regionalism: A Historical Sociological Analysis of ASEAN Economic Community* Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar Graduate Student, MSc Politics with Research Methods, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield Elmfield, Northumberland Road, Western Bank, Sheffield, England S10 2TU [email protected] **This Paper is prepared for the International Studies Association (ISA) Asia-Pacific Conference, City Univesity of Hong Kong, 25-27 June 2016. Please do not cite without explicit permission from the author** * The author acknowledges financial support from the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP). The author is also grateful to Dr Simon Rushton for constructive comments over this draft. Umar | The Pathway to Regionalism “The most important revolutionary force at work in the Third World today is not communism or socialism but capitalism…” Richard Robison Introduction The beginning of 2016 has marked a new phase for the regional integration project in Southeast Asia: the coming of ‘ASEAN Community’ era. By this date, all member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has agreed to transform the region into a more complex form of cooperation under one regional community. The development dates back to the aftermath 1998-1999 financial crisis, when ten ASEAN member states have agreed to give more power for its regional organisation. Since the 2nd ASEAN Summit in Bali, 2003, ASEAN member states have agreed to establish ASEAN Community by 2015, which comprises three pillar of cooperation, including political security, economic, and social cultural. The ASEAN Summit in 2015 has extended this area of cooperation into a deeper multi-sectoral basis until 2025. The development of latest political and economic integration in Southeast Asia has embraced a debate on the nature of regional integration: what makes the regionalism project in Southeast Asia possible? Early regionalism theorists basically argue that it is economic cooperation that enables the growing ‘resurgence’ of regionalism in world politics (Haas, 1958; see Hurrell, 1995; Hettne, 2005). The economic cooperation is arguably possible due to growing interdependency in world politics, particularly after the 1970s (Nye, 1970). This argument has been further developed by liberal-institutionalist approach, who believes on the institutionalisation of cooperation beyond state boundaries (Aris, 2009). On the other side of this debate was the critical theory, who contends that the ‘regional turn’ was in fact enabled by the changing discourse of capitalism in the region, which put the state at the sidelines of emerging regulatory capitalist regime in the region (see Jayasuriya, 2009; Jayasuriya and Hameiri, 2011). This paper aims to offer both theoretical and analytical critique of those perspectives in order to explain the origin of regionalism in Southeast Asia. In so doing, it would be important to further understand the origin of capitalism in Southeast Asia before moving forward to analyse regionalism in Southeast Asia. Capitalist regional project, however, is not new for the region. Recent studies has demonstrated that Dutch and British regional project in Southeast Asia has been established during their mercantilist expansion in Southeast Asia, and contribute to the formation of ‘modern’ political economy(see Lawson and Buzan, 2015; Anievas and Nisancioglu, 2015). However, even though their rules are formative to the capitalist system at that age, there has been also the role of local ruler who maintain feudal economy at the region in the capitalist system (van Klaveren, 1953). Their strong role was evident, for example, in maintaining culturrstelsel in Dutch Indies or performing local rule 2 Umar | The Pathway to Regionalism through British indirect rule in Malaya (see Frankema and Buelens, 2013; van Klaveren, 1953; Hamid, 2007). These ‘local’ origins also contributes to the formation of capitalism in the region. With the decolonisation in 1950s, which leads to the formation of ‘developmental states’ in the 1960s, these historical trajectories characterise the unique characteristics of ‘ersatz capitalism, which put strong state control alongside the capitalist economic development (Kunio, 1987). How could we explain the rise of such that phenomenon? The ‘colonial’ origin of capitalism in Southeast Asia, which takes its root in the mercantilist political economy during the colonial era and its relations with local ruler the region, has led this paper to consider the framework of uneven and combined development –as developed by Trotsky (1930), and elaborated by Rosenberg (2009, 2010)— to comprehend the origin of economic regionalism in Southeast Asia. Drawing upon such framework, which is based on a broader Historical Sociological perspective, this paper argues that the construction of regionalism is neither driven by economic interdependence in the global economy nor the emergence of neoliberal form of ‘global governance’, but constructed historically ‘from within’ the social contestation in the region. Instead of tracing the origin of regionalism from the existing global order, as Hurrell (2007) suggest, this paper argues that it is the transformation of capitalism in the region, which is characterised by an uneven and combined nature of historical development in the region, that enables the ASEAN Economic Community. This paper will build that argument on the longue duree analysis of capitalism in Southeast Asia until the formation of ASEAN Economic Community. To do so, this paper will be divided into four parts. The first part will discuss the theoretical approach to understand the origin of regionalism in Southeast Asia. More specifically, this research will outline the framework of ‘Uneven and Combined Development’ (UCD), as developed by Trotsky (1930) and several proponents of Historical Sociology in International Relations as the main theoretical approach (see Rosenberg, 2009; 2010; Anievas and Nisancioglu, 2015). The second part will trace the historical trajectory of regionalism during the colonial era, which is arguably formative to capitalism in the region. This part will also trace the uneven and combined historical development that enables colonial mercantilist project and set birth to ‘Southeast Asia’ as a region. The third part will elaborate the rise of ‘third world nationalism’ and ‘developmental state’ as post-colonial project in the region, which was slowly emerged in Southeast Asia after the World War. The moment of decolonisation was enabled by several factors, including the rise of nationalism, Japanese expansion, and the post-war crisis that gave momentum for declaration of independence in some countries. The fourth part will understand the formation of capital-based regionalism in ASEAN, which was began by the establishment of ASEAN, and moved forward to its transformation into a more complex form of regionalism under SEAN 3 Umar | The Pathway to Regionalism Community. This paper argues that the transformation is related to the changing discourse of capitalism in both domestic and global level. This part will bring about the framework of uneven and combined development to capture the recent trajectory of regional integration in Southeast Asia. Theorising Southeast Asian Regionalism: The Framework of Uneven and Combined Development Contending Perspectives on Southeast Asian Regionalism There have been many attempts to theorise the recent regionalism in Southeast Asia from a wide range of perspectives, from ‘realism’ to ‘critical theory’ (see, for example, Narine 2002; Acharya and Stubbs, 2006; Kim, 2011; Quayle, 2013; Plummer, 1997; Gerard, 2014; Ikenberry and Mastanduno, 2005; Jayasuriya, 2004; 2008; Hameiri and Jayasuriya, 2009; Jones, 2011). This theoretical development enabled by some developments in the integration project in the region, which is arguably important in locating Southeast Asia in the changing context of world politics. Acharya and Stubbs (2006) argues that the rising theoretisation in Southeast Asian relations reflects the changing discourse of international politics that turns to ‘non- Western’ world, particularly after the financial crisis and growing crisis in world politics. This bourgeoning literature has built up two competing views about integration and regionalism in Southeast Asia. The first view sees regionalism and regional integration in Southeast Asia as merely ‘state-led’ project. This view is shared by realist, constructivist, and to some extent ‘English-School’ approach that posits ‘state’ as the main actor in Southeast Asian relations. Realists, of course, believes that state is the only actor in Southeast Asian relations and is quite skeptical with the regional integration project, having emphasise security and stability as the centre of international relations of the region (Emmers, 2012). Constructivist, even though more ‘critical’, in terms of placing the importance of ‘structure’ over the agential status of the state, also believes that the state is remain central in the region (Haacke, 2003; Easton and Stubbs, 2006; also Acharya, 2003). This standpoint has also been acknowledged by the ‘English School’, who believes on the hierarchical nature of regional politics rather than ‘anarchy’ (see Narine, 2006; Quayle, 2013). The second view, on the contrary, argues that regionalism and regional integration in Southeast Asia are also involving some non-state actors. Liberal-institutionalist and Critical Theory develops this anti-statist theoretical approach, albeit with