Amitav Acharya and the Making of Southeast Asia

Amitav Acharya. The Making of Southeast Asia: International Relations of a Region. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012. 240 pp. $26.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-8014-7736-2. Reviewed by Shaun Narine Published on H-Diplo (September, 2013) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach (Bronx Community College, The City University of New York) Amitav Acharya’s new book The Making of As Acharya notes, The Making of Southeast Southeast Asia: International Relations of the Re‐ Asia incorporates and expands upon The Quest gion is a direct sequel to his book The Quest for for Identity, adding two new chapters. Chapter 2 Identity: International Relations of Southeast of the book updates the theoretical discussion and Asia, published by Oxford University Press in attempts to respond to some of the criticisms 2000. Acharya’s basic concern is the following: to elicited by the earlier book. Chapter 8 delves what extent is it possible to imagine Southeast deeply into the political, economic, and institu‐ Asia into existence as a distinct and meaningful tional developments that have shaped the region political and geographical region? Acharya is since 2000. The book consists of nine chapters. Be‐ widely regarded as the foremost scholar and sides the two chapters already mentioned, chap‐ champion of the application of constructivist ter 1 deals with the changing understanding of thinking to Southeast Asia. This book reinforces Southeast Asia. Chapter 3 begins the historical that approach while still offering a subtle and overview by discussing the precolonial pattern of complex analysis of regional identity in Southeast interstate relations in the region that is Southeast Asia. Ultimately, the book reflects Acharya’s trade‐ Asia today. In this chapter, Acharya draws on nu‐ mark skill in making the history and politics of merous scholars outside of political science, such Southeast Asia come alive. At the same time, how‐ as historians and archaeologists, to make the case ever, the book vacillates between a realistic re‐ that Southeast Asia had a past regional identity, straint in its analysis and a desire to fnd encour‐ suggesting that a new regional identity can be agement at the risk of exaggerating what is actual‐ forged in the modern era. The chapter examines ly possible and plausible for Southeast Asian re‐ the historical impact of commerce and colonial‐ gional identity. ism on the region. Chapter 4 “looks critically at the interrelationship between nationalism, re‐ H-Net Reviews gionalism and the Cold War international order changed and unresolved for the past decade and Southeast Asia,” paying special attention to na‐ which will continue to vex scholars of Southeast tionalism (p. 13). Chapter 5 looks at the emer‐ Asia for the foreseeable future. gence of the Association of Southeast Asian Na‐ One of the strongest contributions of the new tions (ASEAN) and its influence on shaping a re‐ book is found in chapter 2, where Acharya lays gional identity. Chapter 6 examines the conflict out his constructivist approach to studying a “re‐ between ASEAN and Vietnam during the Cold War gion.” He emphasizes the need to move beyond and discusses the domestic and international po‐ material conceptions of regions to take into ac‐ litical forces that eventually ended those divi‐ count the ideational forces that make regions. Es‐ sions. Chapter 7 looks at the period from the end sentially, regions can be created through the deci‐ of the Cold War to the start of the Asian fnancial sion to imagine them into existence. He argues for crisis in 1997. Chapter 9 draws the conclusions of the need to examine a region as more than the the book, “focusing on the rise and decline of the sum of its parts but as a distinct concept with dis‐ regional concept and the fuidity and uncertainty tinct characteristics, separate from the countries that the regionalist imagination of Southeast Asia that may exist within its borders. He strongly em‐ faces today” (p. 15). phasizes the need to be aware of regional history. In 2001, I reviewed The Quest for Identity for This is a key weakness of many studies of South‐ the Cancaps Bulletin.[1] Many of the criticisms I east Asia, which tend to rely too much on examin‐ made then apply to the current book. For exam‐ ing contemporary events. It is here that Acharya ple, Acharya’s application of O. W. Wolter’s con‐ makes an interesting clarification of the mandala cept of the mandala state to Southeast Asia is nov‐ concept by arguing that its primary purpose in ex‐ el and extremely interesting. The mandala refers amining history is to show how other scholars to the authority of a political center which radi‐ have imagined and explained Southeast Asia’s his‐ ates out in concentric circles, exercising decreas‐ torical past in terms of its regional relations. ing levels of control over local authority the fur‐ Acharya argues that modern political scientists ther it moves away from the center. Thus, the can imagine Southeast Asia through a similar in‐ king of an established empire delegates power to tellectual process. He is not arguing that the man‐ his vassals who, in turn, delegate power to their dala concept applies today nor does he even sub‐ retainers. Mandalas can overlap with each other. scribe to the idea that understanding of the In Southeast Asia, this arrangement characterized present lies in the past. He also notes that South‐ regional political interaction. But while Acharya east Asia has been imagined by outside historians uses the mandala to argue for a shared historical and scholars, but also from the inside by South‐ experience that could bind the region together, east Asian elites. Finally, he acknowledges that re‐ other scholars have used the same concept to ar‐ gions are fuid concepts with changing borders gue that the mandala explains why divisions and and the possibility of decline and demise. diversity in Southeast Asia are too great to over‐ Acharya’s approach to regionalism is subtle come.[2] This is not a criticism that Acharya di‐ and sensible, but it also allows him to hedge his rectly addresses in The Making of Southeast Asia, bets. Indeed, contrary to how his work is often though he clarifies his use of the mandala concept portrayed, his approach to regional identity in (discussed below). Moreover, the new book still this book is measured and cautious. Acharya is underestimates the extent to which national and well aware of the challenges facing Southeast other identities trump any prospect of a strong re‐ Asia, even as an imagined region. Thus, in chapter gional identity, a theme I return to below. Howev‐ 8, as he evaluates the effects on ASEAN of global‐ er, these are debates that have remained un‐ 2 H-Net Reviews ization, the emergence of civil society regional‐ most notably Thailand. Christopher Roberts has ism, the rise of China and India, and the idea of an argued that “decades, rather than several years, East Asian Community, it is striking that he feels will be necessary in order for the ASEAN states to that many of these forces can undermine whatev‐ develop the capacity and intention to truly consol‐ er progress has been made towards a Southeast idate along the lines of the ‘ASEAN community’ Asian regional identity. This is sensible approach envisioned in the Bali Concord II.”[3] I agree with to evaluating the region. But the analysis also this assessment. seems at odds with the focus on regional identity A weakness of the book is that it does not di‐ that motivates the rest of the book. Indeed, it ap‐ rectly address some critical events and indicators pears that Acharya is trying to walk a careful line that touch strongly on the question of regional between those scholars who see a clear emer‐ identity. For example, while the book mentions gence of Southeast Asian identity in ASEAN and the many tensions that erupted across Southeast those who see no identity at all. Acharya shows Asia in the aftermath of the Asian economic crisis how a regional identity can be created and he and continued into the 2000s, it emphasizes that evaluates what progress has been made, but he is the states managed to avoid outright conflict (pp. also well aware of how fuid and transitory a re‐ 242-245). However, Acharya does not discuss the gion can be. But this evaluation leads to the ques‐ conflict between Thailand and Cambodia over the tion: if, in the modern era, Southeast Asian identi‐ Preah Vihear temple complex, though this ap‐ ty can be so readily challenged by a changing pears to be an oversight, as evinced by his allu‐ global environment, then how substantial was it sion to the crisis on page 246. Between 2008 and in the frst place? What the book needs is a more 2011, violence between the Thai and Cambodian unequivocal position: what does Acharya think militaries killed twenty soldiers and civilians on the future holds for Southeast Asian regional both sides, involved the exchange of heavy fre‐ identity? power and bombs, and created tens of thousands I think it is clear that Southeast Asians share a of refugees. This is a disturbing example of mili‐ regional identity. Demonstrating that such an tary action between two ASEAN states, the pre‐ identity exists is not really a surprise. The real vention of which is something that ASEAN has question is whether or not this identity super‐ consistently claimed as its major achievement. sedes other, more important identities, such as Despite mediation from Indonesia, ASEAN strove national, ethnic, and religious identifications. The to avoid discussing the conflict, apparently out of overwhelming evidence is that it does not.

Load more