Steady progress in building ASEAN Economic Community

[55100864]

Some countries in ASEAN are clearly pro-China:Cambodia,Indonesia
And some are neutral:Thailand,Malaysia and Brunei.
Though the Chinese government didn't openly declare,but it's already clear,we already give up the sovereignty claims of southern part of the South China sea,so we have no Territorial dispute with Malaysia and Brunei.
And countries like Indonesia are our natural allies,from Chinese point of view,a strong Indonesia will benefit for our national interests

Yes, the whole SCS issue is not about occupy the whole territorial water or natural resources, why would we? It's costly and pointless to have such vast territorial water that needs constantly patrol, all we care and want is effective control of the shipping routes, if Vietnam clever enough, they should cooperate with us, they might even have all the oil and sell it to China, we have plenty of $$ that no where to spend.
after we build the canal in Thailand and the high speed train network, the whole south east Asian economy will be much more dynamic especially for vietnam. Now they have nothing. Vietnam never learn.

 

[Nike]

hmm, i think i should make this thread back into the track

For light introducing, what do you think about ASEAN? some sissy regional organizations who made their non-interventionist rule as their holy text book? yes we are, but thanks to that rule we can maintain and sustain this organization much longer than we can expect at first. The proposal for founding ASEAN as regional organization has been met with such skepticism especially from pro-US aligned member like Philippine in which at the time (1966 through 1968) got a dispute with a newly founded commonwealth Nation, Malaysia over Sabah ownership issue. Indonesia itself just ended their Confrontation policy against Malaysia and Singapore, the policy in which has been issued because Indonesia fear to be surrounded by Neo-colonialist power forming by British Empire with the forming of Malaysia. And together with Australia at our backyard will endanger Indonesian sovereignty and Nationalism (sound like Hyper-paranoia freaks? but yes it is, we are like that at that time). Singapore too, at the time of ASEAN to be founded they just get their independence from Malaysia and got an uneasy peace treaty with Indonesia after found themselves has been abandoned by their Malaysian overlord to facing Indonesia confrontation policy (at the time of Singapore independence, Indonesia and Malaysia has signed a peace treaty in which not included Singapore in the process). Irks by that move, Singapore soon seek the peace with Indonesia and till today they still hold a great enmity against their Malayan peninsular brother over that issue.

But how can, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippine with their just barely ended recent conflicts and a great enmity with each other still can get a hold and pursue a common goal through ASEAN as organisations? Surely we need a common goal, and we just found it when we are talking about the danger of Communism. As has been stated clearly

The motivations for the birth of ASEAN were so that its members’ governing elite could concentrate on nation building, the common fear of communism, reduced faith in or mistrust of external powers in the 1960s, and a desire for economic development.

But as the time goes on, and the prevalence of Communism as danger has been ended with the collapse of Sovyet Union. ASEAN seeking a new role and new meaning toward future. And then, after a heating debate ASEAN actually can accept Vietnam as their seventh member, to be followed by Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos. Thus ASEAN community has found their new form themselves.

For further integration economic clause within ASEAN as a regional organizations and her surrounding, Malaysia at first has proposed the East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) or East Asia Economic Group (EAEG) was a regional free trade zone (FTA) proposed in 1990. Malaysia proposed this caucus at fear of growing hegemony of American side in APEC. The original concept of EAEC was very difficult to implement, as there were large economic, political, and regional differences between the East Asian countries. Besides these difficulties, Mahathir's concept committed Japan to be the leading power. At the time, this perspective was not acceptable for Japan, as it was closely allied to the US and deeply linked through trade with the other nations to be excluded from the organization. South Korea was also extremely dissatisfied with Japan being placed at the center of the proposed organization, and would not support it. And in the end, Japan and other prominent member of ASEAN such as Indonesia and Singapore rejected the Mahattir proposal.

ASEAN Plus Three (APT) is a forum that functions as a coordinator of cooperation between the Association of South East Asia Nation and the three East Asia nations of China, Japan, and South Korea. Government leaders, ministers, and senior officials from the 10 members of the ASEAN and the three Northeast Asian states consult on an increasing range of issues. The APT is the latest development of East Asian regional cooperation. In the past, proposals, such as ROK’s call for an Asian Common Market in 1970 and Japan’s 1988 suggestion for an Asian Network, have been made to bring closer regional cooperation. Since then ASEAN plus three has become a common platform from Aspacs countries to deal with their peer, such as European Union and Africa Union. The first leaders' meetings were held in 1996 and 1997 to deal with Asia-Europe meeting issues, and China and Japan each wanted regular summit meetings with ASEAN members afterwards. The group's significance and importance was strengthened by the Asian Financial Crisis. In response to the crisis, ASEAN closely cooperated with China, Japan, and ROK. Since the implementation of the Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation in 1999 at the Manila Summit, APT finance ministers have been holding periodic consultations.

Thus as a regional organizations ASEAN has been a success and become a notion when all of the countries within ASEAN got a fair share in the voice and their idea can be heard among all of other members. This way we as a regional organization can survive and doing fairly better in economics terms regarding our vastly different background.

And recently, Bangladesh has been joined as an observer after recommendation from Laos in 2011 albeit meeting some concern from Myanmar. It will be a nice addition into ASEAN community if Bangladesh can join us.

 

[Jlaw]

A military alliance may not mean an EU style union, but it will definitely mean greater economic integration between allied countries, just like we see among NATO and partners. There is about a billion people in these countries, if all available countries become members and the collective economy will be far greater than that of India. Any member country must put the strategic, military and economic interest of any other member country above their economic relations with non-member countries. Why would people take this kind of economic hit, because it concerns their security. Money will not buy you soldiers from members countries who committed in a military alliance with your country and will keep your country secure from outside threat.

India will find it difficult to play game with BD if BD becomes a member of an alliance as allied countries will put pressure on India to stop its illegal interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign country. India has no reason to invade BD, but if it does, then all other members of the alliance will be duty bound to intervene militarily, just like Article 5 of NATO, an attack on one is an attack on all. Economic ties will always be secondary to military ties, as has been shown in many previous wars in recent history in past centuries. If any country violates the mutual defense treaty clauses, then they will be expelled or suspended or downgraded, according to alliance rules:
What is NATO?
"NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or several members is considered as an attack against all. This is the principle of collective defence, which is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

So far, Article 5 has been invoked once - in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States."

The whole idea of collective self defense is that all member country armed forces will be willing to die for the safety of any other member country, so without that kind of commitment, by definition there is no military alliance.

Basing rights will definitely be part of the alliance structure for member countries, if it is required for collective self defense.

First, I understand completely what you are saying. However, my previous post counter the points you made.
If it's an economic alliance you are looking for, there is no need to form an alliance. A free trade between the countries are just as good.
NATO has article 5, but will ASEAN country have something simiar? If Vietnam starts a war with China, will all the ASEAN countries jump in and aid VN? I can tell you that this alliance will only benefit Vietnam, Pinoys and Japanese. It will not benefit BD for the reasons I've mentioned. Every single ASEAN countries you mentioned are "me" first "you" last.

There is no clear leader to lead the ASEAN alliance. On top of that you have animosity and mistrust amongst members. SK doesn't like/ trust Japan. SG don't trust VN or Malaysia., etc.

At the end of the day, the politicians will toast each other in front of cameras but will back stab one another in order to get an edge over the other. That is why China is not worried about this alliance because it's not going to work in the real world.

 

[Cossack25A1]

From a certain perspective, the ASEAN is slowly becoming political-economic union if you were to consider the ASEAN Economic Integration in 2015 as the first step in turning the ASEAN into something similar to concept of the European Union and because the EU has this "Common Security and Defence Policy" which is basically the military face of the EU, ASEAN theoretically can establish something similar to EU's CSDP in the future but the political and territorial issue at present means such defense policy is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

 

[somsak]

A military alliance may not mean an EU style union, but it will definitely mean greater economic integration between allied countries, just like we see among NATO and partners. There is about a billion people in these countries, if all available countries become members and the collective economy will be far greater than that of India. Any member country must put the strategic, military and economic interest of any other member country above their economic relations with non-member countries. Why would people take this kind of economic hit, because it concerns their security. Money will not buy you soldiers from members countries who committed in a military alliance with your country and will keep your country secure from outside threat.

I would say, highly unlikely, friend. Each of ASEAN is doing for themself first. They even see other states as competitors. Vietnam would benchmark everything with Thailand. Almost every country has border conflict with neighbor, here and there.

I would say upcoming Thai-Myanmar border conflictd to be blossom. Thai-Lao 20 yrs ago do battle conflict war. Thai-Cambodia you know the story. We suspect that Malay is behind our southern insurgencies. And you have Malay-Phillipines Sabah. Indonesia had some problem with Ajeh.

Therefore, for me, an ASEAN's Nato does not sound. Why would we have to die for Vietnam's conflict with China when we were saved by China in the past? You can read VN expansionist comments in this thread. What do you think? You think you are far away? That means you are far away from ASEAN. Suppose Myanmar has a war with BD, do we need to die for Myanmar? Suppose Indonesia has a military conflict with US' back Australia, do we have to send our tiny naval fleets to fight for Indonesia against US will?

 

[Nike]

From a certain perspective, the ASEAN is slowly becoming political-economic union if you were to consider the ASEAN Economic Integration in 2015 as the first step in turning the ASEAN into something similar to concept of the European Union and because the EU has this "Common Security and Defence Policy" which is basically the military face of the EU, ASEAN theoretically can establish something similar to EU's CSDP in the future but the political and territorial issue at present means such defense policy is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

nah, several NATO countries has territorial dispute between themselves. Spain and England has issue over Gibraltar, actually Germany and France has issue over Alsace-Lotharingen more over lot of cultural and historical issue plague European Union member, far worst than the ASEAN currently facing has. As an example, just seventy years ago, European Union has been locked into seemingly endless war cycle, but look at them now, their conflict made them realize the important of credible regional organizations to voicing their intention and put their energy into something more positive than building a lot of war machine like in the past.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

I would say, highly unlikely, friend. Each of ASEAN is doing for themself first. They even see other states as competitors. Vietnam would benchmark everything with Thailand. Almost every country has border conflict with neighbor, here and there.

I would say upcoming Thai-Myanmar border conflictd to be blossom. Thai-Lao 20 yrs ago do battle conflict war. Thai-Cambodia you know the story. We suspect that Malay is behind our southern insurgencies. And you have Malay-Phillipines Sabah. Indonesia had some problem with Ajeh.

Therefore, for me, an ASEAN's Nato does not sound. Why would we have to die for Vietnam's conflict with China when we were saved by China in the past? You can read VN expansionist comments in this thread. What do you think? You think you are far away? That means you are far away from ASEAN. Suppose Myanmar has a war with BD, do we need to die for Myanmar? Suppose Indonesia has a military conflict with US' back Australia, do we have to send our tiny naval fleets to fight for Indonesia against US will?

Your leaders already know Malaysia is behind the Thai Southern Muslim terrorist. They just do not want to shout it out at the roof top, so that deals can be easily reached close door.

The Terrorist Threat from Thailand: Jihad Or Quest for Justice? - Rohan Gunaratna, Arabinda Acharya - Google Books

Encyclopedia of Terrorism - Google Books

The communist MCP was also used by Thailand to wedge a salient and to stabilized the Thai border. The Islamist are such as shitt people that even the communist hate them and co-operate with the Thai government. During battle with MCP, the Islamist lost their pants.

泰南回教叛亂探秘

Today, the former MCP zone is still the most prosperous zone in Yala. The Islamist shitt on themselves so much. Malaysia also help to pee on Islamist so that they get themselves killed by Thai in order to cry discrimination and persecution.

 

[Nike]

I would say, highly unlikely, friend. Each of ASEAN is doing for themself first. They even see other states as competitors. Vietnam would benchmark everything with Thailand. Almost every country has border conflict with neighbor, here and there.

I would say upcoming Thai-Myanmar border conflictd to be blossom. Thai-Lao 20 yrs ago do battle conflict war. Thai-Cambodia you know the story. We suspect that Malay is behind our southern insurgencies. And you have Malay-Phillipines Sabah. Indonesia had some problem with Ajeh.

Therefore, for me, an ASEAN's Nato does not sound. Why would we have to die for Vietnam's conflict with China when we were saved by China in the past? You can read VN expansionist comments in this thread. What do you think? You think you are far away? That means you are far away from ASEAN. Suppose Myanmar has a war with BD, do we need to die for Myanmar? Suppose Indonesia has a military conflict with US' back Australia, do we have to send our tiny naval fleets to fight for Indonesia against US will?

actually i more prefer something like the African Union has in their military cooperation perspective

 

[DarkElf]

I doubt that South-East Asia will have its own NATO as the last time it had which is in the form SEATO, it failed. Also, each nations in South-East Asia has their own territorial claims and if given the chance (warmongering leaders, irrational decisions), the SEA countries would rather tear each other apart than solve it as "humanely" as possible.

Not really, so far ASEAN countries (especially core member ) track record to solved territorial dispute between them is quite good. Malaysia, Philliphines, Singapore and Indonesia already used the international forum several time to solved their territorial disputed, without coming to clashl.

 

[kalu_miah]

Why would Korea be a vessel state? That's like saying the UK is a vessel state. A unified Korea gives them more to work with and their navy and economy is more than capable of charting their own course with occasional co-op with China. Japan and South Korean navy are similar in capability.

I am only looking at hardware, what you are looking at is also "only" at hardware, because you believe it will eventually translate into hardware, so the final factor is still hardware.

I throw this at you, China's rise in military capability is far faster than any and all. So, in the long term the difference will be far greater, not smaller.

UK would be vassal of which country? USA?
UK's vassal status re-affirmed?
Britain as a vassal state of the USA
Craig Murray » Blog Archive » America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally

History of Sino-Korean relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" the Later Yan state sacked Pyongyang and made Goguryeo tributary to Yan and Later Qin.[3]
During the Tang dynasty in China, the Korean kingdoms of Goguryeo and Balhae were regarded as tributary states by the Chinese imperial court.
During the period of 1231–1259, the Mongols invaded Korea, ultimately resulting in the capitulation of Goryeo and becoming a vassal state of the Yuan Dynasty for over 80 years.
Following the Second Manchu invasion of Korea, the Qing claimed victory and forced Injo of Joseon into submission, severing its relations with the collapsing Ming dynasty, which eventually fell in 1644."

Its possible that a unified Korea will remain allied with China, because unlike Japan they have a land border with China. But it is also possible that they will choose the Japanese path of seeking balancing ties with the military alliance under discussion, in addition to their relationship with US/NATO to hedge their bet.

Hardware can always be recreated, just like Europe and Japan rose from ashes of WW II, the important thing in my opinion is to have a highly educated, developed and creative population in a stable and secure political structure. People and their know-how and creativity make hardware.

China's growth rate already slowed down. Every country has a growth rate curve that becomes more flat over time as the country becomes more developed. If the members of the military alliance can be managed well under Japanese leadership, then I think it is possible to achieve high growth rate and compete with China. With high economic growth will come more military capability.

 

[kalu_miah]

I doubt that this would happen. Just look at what is happening at the Euro at present times.

Euro was a big mistake, too early and caused a lot of economic damage.

I think every one would welcome such alliance if it 's purely a economic one, in that case, of course South Korean would join, China would like to join too, but I think there is on such thing called economic alliance, free trade agreement would be more appropriate.

If it's about EU like regional economic, political alliance, I would say nearly impossible, ASEAN itself is very immature , the economic, technology, culture, even race among these countries vary hugely, not to mention the different geopolitical nature, Even EU is highly fragmented despite decades of integration. ASEAN plus Japan, SK, BD, SL, in my option, is illogic.

If it is all about counter China, I bet South Korean will stay neutral, and countries like Vietnam, Taiwan, by logic, should stay neutral, in fact, every ASEAN countries should not see China as a treat, we planed to outsource our manufacture to South East Asian like Indonesia and Vietnam so they can become next China to enjoin the double digit growth, but we all know that Vietnam always make stupid decision when it comes to take side. If a war breaks out between US and China (highly unlikely), it would only be a limited regional war like Korean War, a full scale war between US and China is impossible because it will certainly lead to WW III, a disaster of humanity which there will be no winner and loser. So just imagine if a limited regional war breaks out between US and China, it would be extremely stupid for SK, Vietnam And Taiwan to side with US, because the battle will only take place in Korean Peninsula, Vietnam and Taiwan, not mainland China or US, in that case, whoever wins the war, the loser would certainly be Korean and Vietnam.

Economic integration already taking place among all regional countries and will accelerate with time under bilateral FTA type arrangements.

We were discussing a separate military alliance between certain regional countries.

 

[kalu_miah]

We don't need them to rescue us. But we can cooperate together to craft a strategy to reduce this Asia bloc potential to challenge the big 3 power (USA, Russia, China) because this alliance intention is clear to all. After all we do have interest in maintaining global order. Also it is not the first time we allied with the US for strategic interest. We cooperate with them before.

This time we are in the middle of a Pivot to Asia. The idea of the Pivot is to ensure a stable global and regional order.

 

[Nike]

Not really, so far ASEAN countries (especially core member ) track record to solved territorial dispute between them is quite good. Malaysia, Philliphines, Singapore and Indonesia already used the international forum several time to solved their territorial disputed, without coming to clashl.

What do you think about the proposal to made something like ASEAN Standby Forces? something more like military and security cooperation intra ASEAN in which i like to translated into multidisciplinary peacekeeping force with military, police and civilian contingents that acts under the direction of the ASEAN. The Asean Security Forces is to be deployed in times of crisis not only in ASEAN, but globally too. This way we can avoid to having any dominance country to implement their wish into organizations and push more cooperation from smaller countries. And there is reflecting on Tsunami crisis and Malaysian airplane search fiasco, made me thinking it would be nice if ASEAN have such a tools to coordinate all of the efforts, and made this more efficient

 

[Aepsilons]

Well written posts , @madokafc and @kalu_miah

 

[Cossack25A1]

nah, several NATO countries has territorial dispute between themselves. Spain and England has issue over Gibraltar, actually Germany and France has issue over Alsace-Lotharingen more over lot of cultural and historical issue plague European Union member, far worst than the ASEAN currently facing has. As an example, just seventy years ago, European Union has been locked into seemingly endless war cycle, but look at them now, their conflict made them realize the important of credible regional organizations to voicing their intention and put their energy into something more positive than building a lot of war machine like in the past.

Well ASEAN was originally created as an alternative to the SEATO which is a failure but has the same objectives - to combat the spread communism but with the end of the Cold War and Vietnam ascended to ASEAN, what will be the new goal of ASEAN other than the economic integration.

Not really, so far ASEAN countries (especially core member ) track record to solved territorial dispute between them is quite good. Malaysia, Philliphines, Singapore and Indonesia already used the international forum several time to solved their territorial disputed, without coming to clashl.

Like I said, if a country has the misfortune of having a leader that is a warmonger or makes irrational decisions, there is a chance that a war could ignite. For example, had Aquino voiced supported the militants that attacked Lahad Datu, the least-worst outcome is that Philippines and Malaysian would have their diplomatic relations severed and the worst would be a war which would be fought in some areas of the Philippines' southern island of Mindanao.