Who Says the ASEAN Way is Dead?

These days I am getting more and more disagreeable.

One source of my "disagreeability" is a 2004 article by Hiro Katsumata (Why is ASEAN Diplomacy Changing? From "Non Interference" to "Open and Frank Discussions").

My bone of contention was with the examples he had cited to suggest that the ASEAN Way had considerably weakened. He cited the sense of crisis among member states due to the onslaught of the Asian Financial Crisis (AFC), as well as the spurt of mutual criticisms in the late 90s on issues as diverse as the haze situation, the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim, and the appointment of B J Habibie.

These examples, I thought, were merely aberrations, not to mention outdated, considering that the article was written in 2004.

After all, the lesson/s from the AFC seemed to have been forgotten by now, and complacency had once again set in. Besides, the spurt of criticisms had also ceased.

Furthermore, Katsumata had also pointed out that Thailand and the Philippines were the two most vocal advocates of modifying the ASEAN Way of non-interference, and of championing greater democracy and openness among member states.

But with the latest coup in Thailand, the Thais can - at least for the foreseeable future - forget about taking the moral high ground when it comes to advocating democracy.

And let's not even talk about the Philippines, where democracy does not seem to have made a marked improvement in the lives of its people. Quit championing democracy when the said ideology has not done you any good. Isn't that supposed to be common sense?