Back in the days of backpacking through the European continent during his graduate school days, the author had many doubts about the European Union's ability to forge a common identity for different races and nationalities who answer to different customs, languages, and religions. Indeed, the thoughts ring even truer today in a continent where diverging economic fortunes among different member states are threatening to tear apart any sort of ideological cohesion based on the pure of "European-ness" that act as the spiritual glue of EU as a supranational concept.
Without the doubt, the uncertain fate of EU is a sign of warning for many other aspiring supranational organizations seeking the solid, implementable, and executable sense of significance that EU nonetheless have on Europe as a single entity, despite all the inconsistencies and problems associated with all manners of integration. One of these aspiring organizations has been (for quite a while now, it seems) Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), that group that theoretically coordinates the differing interests of different Southeast Asian countries and form some sort of common front internationally.
While it is simple premature to compare aspects of political and economic integration between the two (ASEAN has pretty done nothing on these fronts when compared to the achievement of the EU), at least on the cultural exchange front, there may be some sense in drawing parallels. Despite all the cultural differences, there are common historical ties that can serve as rally points. Many of the nations are populated by ethnic Malay races (not just Malaysia, but Philippines, Singapore, East Timor, Brunei, and to lesser extent, Thailand).
All countries except Thailand were dominated by European colonial powers who left a legacy in cuisine, language, social institutions ranging from names to religion. Almost all share the headaches of powerfully dominant Chinese merchant class and increasingly vocal Muslim fundamentalist elements. They also share the worries of external influence from an economically dominant China that also happen to share border disputes with most ASEAN members, a uneasily "pivoting" America, and a host of major economic players like India, Korea, and Japan.
These are all legitimate reasons for ASEAN to become more powerful. Shared traits can serve as conduit for which states can coordinate to hold their own against these major powers, anyone of which are exponentially more powerful than any of the Southeast Asian countries can ever be individually. However, at least at the grassroots level, the author has witnessed little effort from locals for such strategic thinking. Tellingly, few people, especially here in the Philippines, have been to or even expressed the desire to visit their immediate international neighbors.
Instead, even when they have the financial resources and the time for international travel, they tend to burn them on trips to faraway places like the US or Japan, where not only flights, but expenses on food, lodging, and tourism are much much higher than the equivalent in other Southeast Asian states. The author's recent trip to the Myanmar Embassy in Manila for visa application, for instance, illustrates the lack of physical people movement between the two countries when he saw an office completely devoid of people except for a couple local business travelers.
Sure, the author totally understand the locals being mesmerized by the sense of economic wealth, cultural sophistication, and physical development they no doubt witness at the faraway places they head to for their vacations, and by no means discourage people from doing so. But being exclusively focusing on these places at the expense of other Southeast Asian nations, the Southeast Asians are beautifully playing into the hands of the great powers. It is the very intention of the great powers to insert themselves into the minds and hearts of the locals, to ensure that ASEAN identity doesn't form.
The empty Burmese visa office, in contrast to the full American and Japanese ones, shows that the people here are not ready for ASEAN as anything more than an opaque top-down symbolism for regional cooperation, much less a contender for EU. With every instance of ignorance they hold for their fellow Southeast Asians, they have booked themselves a future as citizens of client/satellite states serving only the interest of outside powers. By the looks of it, the so-called Southeast Asian identity is non-existent and no one is making any effort to change that fact.
Without the doubt, the uncertain fate of EU is a sign of warning for many other aspiring supranational organizations seeking the solid, implementable, and executable sense of significance that EU nonetheless have on Europe as a single entity, despite all the inconsistencies and problems associated with all manners of integration. One of these aspiring organizations has been (for quite a while now, it seems) Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), that group that theoretically coordinates the differing interests of different Southeast Asian countries and form some sort of common front internationally.
While it is simple premature to compare aspects of political and economic integration between the two (ASEAN has pretty done nothing on these fronts when compared to the achievement of the EU), at least on the cultural exchange front, there may be some sense in drawing parallels. Despite all the cultural differences, there are common historical ties that can serve as rally points. Many of the nations are populated by ethnic Malay races (not just Malaysia, but Philippines, Singapore, East Timor, Brunei, and to lesser extent, Thailand).
All countries except Thailand were dominated by European colonial powers who left a legacy in cuisine, language, social institutions ranging from names to religion. Almost all share the headaches of powerfully dominant Chinese merchant class and increasingly vocal Muslim fundamentalist elements. They also share the worries of external influence from an economically dominant China that also happen to share border disputes with most ASEAN members, a uneasily "pivoting" America, and a host of major economic players like India, Korea, and Japan.
These are all legitimate reasons for ASEAN to become more powerful. Shared traits can serve as conduit for which states can coordinate to hold their own against these major powers, anyone of which are exponentially more powerful than any of the Southeast Asian countries can ever be individually. However, at least at the grassroots level, the author has witnessed little effort from locals for such strategic thinking. Tellingly, few people, especially here in the Philippines, have been to or even expressed the desire to visit their immediate international neighbors.
Instead, even when they have the financial resources and the time for international travel, they tend to burn them on trips to faraway places like the US or Japan, where not only flights, but expenses on food, lodging, and tourism are much much higher than the equivalent in other Southeast Asian states. The author's recent trip to the Myanmar Embassy in Manila for visa application, for instance, illustrates the lack of physical people movement between the two countries when he saw an office completely devoid of people except for a couple local business travelers.
Sure, the author totally understand the locals being mesmerized by the sense of economic wealth, cultural sophistication, and physical development they no doubt witness at the faraway places they head to for their vacations, and by no means discourage people from doing so. But being exclusively focusing on these places at the expense of other Southeast Asian nations, the Southeast Asians are beautifully playing into the hands of the great powers. It is the very intention of the great powers to insert themselves into the minds and hearts of the locals, to ensure that ASEAN identity doesn't form.
The empty Burmese visa office, in contrast to the full American and Japanese ones, shows that the people here are not ready for ASEAN as anything more than an opaque top-down symbolism for regional cooperation, much less a contender for EU. With every instance of ignorance they hold for their fellow Southeast Asians, they have booked themselves a future as citizens of client/satellite states serving only the interest of outside powers. By the looks of it, the so-called Southeast Asian identity is non-existent and no one is making any effort to change that fact.
Comments
Post a Comment