ASEAN and Southeast Asia The original ASEAN-5 was a product of the Cold War when Southeast Asia remained divided and the Vietnam War was raging. It was established by Thailand and four newly independent Southeast Asian states (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore) in 1967, driven by the fear of a communist take-over of the region. ASEAN-5 was also an extraordinary and unexpected result of the ‘coup’ in September 1965 in Indonesia that led to the overthrow of Sukarno and saw the coming into power of Suharto. That accident of history, together with the separation of Singapore from Malaysia to become an independent state, made ASEAN-5 possible. These developments from 1963 to 1967 reshaped Southeast Asia. It gave ASEAN-5 a semiregional role in a region yet to be brought together due to the ideological divide. The end of the Cold War again changed the regional landscape, and the 1990s served as a turning point: The US became the sole global superpower; China was rising but not yet risen; and ASEAN became a truly regional body with ten member states. With ASEAN-10, one can now confidently say that there is a Southeast Asia that is operating through ASEAN and is capable of developing itself in a self-assured and self-confident manner. It remains however a very difficult undertaking. Within ASEAN itself, two processes have been taking place at the same time. On the one hand, ASEAN has given Southeast Asia a new reality as a region – a platform on which the member states could band together for a common vision and future. This new reality has been fostered by the globalisation that created borderless economies around the world. On the other hand, every ASEAN member state, over the past 50 years, has made strenuous efforts to build their nation-states that would be separated and clearly distinct from one another. As modern nation-states, they still have to deal with a new set of diversity and fragmentation created by the borders and legacies left behind by the colonial powers. This requires great sensitivity and tremendous care among the leaders in managing differences within their respective countries as well as as those with their neighbours. The juxtaposition of these two processes has created a tension between the modern concept of nation-state and the new idea of a region. This tension has slowed down the possibility of developing regional identity, regional one-ness and regional unity, and it would remain with us for a while yet. The ASEAN enterprise is definitely work in progress. The officials of the member states have done well thus far to keep it together during the last 50 years. The first generations of ASEAN-5 officials have developed a very good understanding of one another. The new member states that joined ASEAN in the 1990s are also producing this kind of officialdom. They are working together on a daily basis and almost never fail to meet to talk about the future of the region. This has demanded sensitivity, a give-and-take approach and a willingness to compromise and make decisions based on consensus. This so-called ASEAN Way has been described as hampering the development of ASEAN unity. Yet, it is deeply rooted in all the historical factors mentioned above. It should not be dismissed or taken lightly since it is also part of the nationbuilding process of the member states. At the same time, the calls for ASEAN to be united and to speak with one voice have become more frequent and urgent. It is indeed in the region’s interest to be united and be able to speak with one voice, so that its big neighbours and external powers would respect and listen to the region whenever it speaks up. And yet, this unity cannot be pushed too far or rushed too fast. There are two aspects of it. The call for unity from inside is legitimate and must be pursued with subtlety and sensitivity among the leaders in the region. On the other hand, the calls for ASEAN unity from outside are growing louder but to the effect that the region would unite to side with one power against another power. The leaders of ASEAN have to constantly weigh all this since the internal calls for unity are based on very different principles from the external calls. To deal with the above complexity, it helps to go back to the fundamental openness that has defined this region from the very beginning and has lived on for the past two thousand years. It is the capacity of the people in this region to take in new ideas and influences, adapt them for their purposes, and eventually internalise them to be part of their own culture and value systems. That capacity is common to the whole Southeast Asia. These people do not obey one single order or follow one single set of rules. They all have their own diverse and fragmented ways of approaching different problems, and the confidence and assurance of knowing what they want. They all seek autonomy within a large unity. That mixture of national autonomy and ultimate regional unity would probably continue in Southeast Asia for a long time. It should not be regarded as a weakness. In fact, it is a strength, a contribution of the “local genius” that could make the region grow stronger and more confident of itself. The open outlook of Southeast Asia is echoed across a world that has also become increasingly open. Despite voices calling for protectionism and insularism, ultimately the multilateralism and globalisation that have gained momentum over the last few decades are irreversible and inevitable. The power of technology and the availability of the communication systems today make it impossible for the world to turn inward. The region should take advantage of this openness, absorbing new ideas and internalising them to strengthen the ASEAN body itself. ASEAN member states should reintegrate this openness into their way of thinking to become more unified, and at the same time not to be afraid of being open to the world. As part of Southeast Asia’s heritage, this openness should be sustained and built upon for the future of the region. Prof. Wang Gungwu is Chairman of ISEAS Board of Trustees, University Professor at the National University of Singapore and Emeritus Professor of the Australian National University. This article is based on his lecture at the ISEAS 50th Anniversary Lecture delivered on 3 October 2018 at Orchard Hotel, Singapore. 5 — ISSUE 5/2018