Ahmad Rizky M. Umar and Karina Larasati B. Riyanto

What should ASEAN do in the next 50 years? For ASEAN, its survival for the last 50 years is a great achievement. Although some people said that ASEAN has undergone slow and steady development, its survival during the last 50 year has proved ASEAN’s resilience to political changes in global.

But could ASEAN survive for another 50 years? ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada has presented a series of article on “ASEAN after 50”, which comprises reflections on what has ASEAN achieved in latest 50 years and what should be done in the future. Many authors shared optimism –alongside critical viewpoint—on the future of ASEAN.

Ahmad Rizky M. Umar kicked-off by arguing that the future ASEAN integration needs to move beyond political and economic integration. He suggests that ASEAN needs to take into account broader issues other than traditional free trade, security, or political integration issues. ASEAN needs to deal with oft-neglected issues such as Middle Income Trap, Sustainability, Human Rights, or Gender.

Suraj Shah, for example, argues that ASEAN needs to rethink its approach to development and industrial strategy in order to escape the Middle Income Trap. Economic integration attempt to pave the way for such initiative, but the perceived ASEAN way among the member states constrained the implementation.

Taking a more critical stance, Jakkrit Chuamuangphan calls ASEAN to pay more attention to Human Rights defender. The case of forced disappearances in many Southeast Asian states (most notably, the Sombhat case in Laos) should be tackled by ASEAN by functioning its Human Rights Commission, which has been established since 2009. Farieda Ilhami Zulaikha highlights the many languages of gender discrimination in the region, which ASEAN is still unable to respond with proper policy frameworks.

From a sustainability perspective, Ibnu Budiman reflects the need for ASEAN to rethink its approach to agricultural sector due to the danger of climate change. Moreover, he suggests that ASEAN should start to protect the rights of smallholder farmers through investing in climate action. A more participatory approach with farmers in each ASEAN member states is therefore necessary.

Dendy Raditya Atmosuwito raises more questions as to how we should reconsider ASEAN studies in the future, given the existing social and political challenges in the last 50 years. For example, as Dio H. Tobing has critically asked, is such notion like ASEAN Way –a perceived diplomatic culture among ASEAN member states based on non-intervention principle—still relevant in the future? The answer yes, given the historical importance of such norm in the past.

Nevertheless, according to Rifky Maulana Iqbal Taufik, ASEAN should also consider establishing a more complex form of collective identity to bring the idea of ASEAN Community ‘down to ordinary people’. This is where paradiplomacy is increasingly important for ASEAN. Ario Bimo Utomo explains that which the practice of diplomacy is not only dominated by the central government, but also the local government. This new framework should also be considered by ASEAN in the future. This necessitates further capacity development and inclusion of ‘good governance’ in ASEAN’s institutional design, according to Pinto Buana Putra.

In the end, the trend of Asian international politics in the 21st century shows geopolitical challenges that ASEAN cannot deny. The geopolitical context in Asia is changing. The rise of China after nearly forty years of reforms evokes the signs of uncertainty, security instability and also, expectation, within the region.
On the one hand, China’s presence as the new global economic force altered the direction of bilateral relations in Asia by reducing the dominance power and influence of the United States within the region. China rise to power succeeded in providing new nuances in regional cooperation including export activities of Southeast Asia countries. On the other hand, as suggested by many analysts, rising power usually emerges as revisionist rather than status quo powers or simply maintaining the balance of power. With China outgrowing as a regional power and on its way through the global stage, its opening up the possibility of creating a new order in the international system.

China’s economic ascent and therefore, military strengthening raises concerns about the possibility of war outbreak between the two great powers and the deteriorated conflict in the South China Sea, involving China and most of the ASEAN member states. As a matter of fact, what is seen to date, instead of peace and stability as promised, there is an increase of tension and China’s arrogance in securing its state’s interests.

Another challenge for ASEAN in this geopolitical shift is to maintain the neutrality and unity of ASEAN member states. It is worth noting, China’s growing economic relations with ASEAN member states is remarkable but the US is an irreplaceable element of regional balance because it is the US that has brought prosperity to the region. The competition of two or more great forces within the region has, indirectly, divided regions over different frontiers. With the faded unity among ASEAN member states, ASEAN has increasingly lost its relevance and power to act as a stabilizer between the competition of the two great powers.

The geopolitical shift and the rise of China are inevitable. To deal with this challenges, ASEAN needs to wisely benefit on the opportunities and fight against any possibilities that might deteriorate regional peace and stability. The generous goal of China in establishing Asia as an independent region should be put to good use.

This is where ASEAN needs to strengthen its cooperation with China as well as the other countries to counterweight China’s power in the region, as argued by Gabriel Lele,  ASEAN should not become a ‘passive actor’ in crafting cooperation with China. Rather, ASEAN should negotiate in many relevant aspects, one of which is the cooperation based on history past and similarity on culture.

*) Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar is the Executive Secretary of ASEAN Studies Center UGM and
Karina Larasati is a Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

Ario Bimo Utomo

During the last few decades, sub-state entities have been rising to prominence due to the increasing level of globalization. Anthony Giddens argues that this phenomenon is caused by two colliding forces of globalization, namely the upward force and the downward force. The upward force, as Giddens describes, is a force which diminishes the traditional state boundaries by creating an increasing interconnectedness among states.

On the other hand, the downward force of globalization is a force which encourages local entities to realize their own positions in this increasingly connected world—forcing states to provide them with channels to express their own interests. The involvement of sub-state entities in the foreign affairs is known as paradiplomacy.

Paradiplomacy, an abbreviation of “parallel diplomacy”, is a concept which depicts the ability of sub-state entities (cities, provinces, autonomous regions) to engage in international affairs with their foreign counterparts. Andre Lecours states that paradiplomacy can be conducted within three different scopes: (1) economic, (2) cultural, and (3) political. Intuitively, paradiplomacy is possible to enhance the quality of democracy as it makes policies less elitist by putting the decision-making authority closer to the people.

Paradiplomacy constitutes one prominent issue in this 50 years anniversary of ASEAN. However, we can examine that paradiplomacy is relatively unknown in most scholarships about the organization. We may notice that states are still positioned as the most prominent actors. Since its inception in 1967, ASEAN has been popular for having its own unique principles which essentially champions state-centric norms such as non-interference and respect for sovereignty—a set of principles which is dearly called as the ASEAN Way. This stance has sparked debates regarding its relevance in this increasingly-interconnected world.

It is difficult to envisage a diplomatic mechanism which positions sub-state entities as other actors in alternative discourses about ASEAN. Therefore, it leads us to our main question: can ASEAN—with its ASEAN Way—embrace paradiplomacy?

ASEAN Environmentally Sustainable Cities

The organization, however, does not stipulate explicitly how sub-state engagement can be conducted. In the ASEAN Charter, yet, the organization has already outlined a vision that ASEAN shall be a “people-oriented” society which everyone can benefit from its integration (Point 13 of the Article 1). Through the Blueprint of the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community, ASEAN has also indicated its commitment to building a more “inclusive, sustainable, resilient, and dynamic” community.

Those factors indicate that sub-state engagements are not impossible to be done within the current ASEAN framework.

As a matter of fact, it is incorrect to say that the paradiplomatic activity is completely unknown to this organization. Despite its essential focus in state-to-state relations, the organization has already got a platform which paved a road for sub-state entities to be positioned as actors. In this case, we can pick an example from a program called the ASEAN Environmentally Sustainable Cities.

During 2009-2015, the ASEAN Environmentally Sustainable Cities was intended to be a part of the wider ASEAN Socio-cultural Community Blueprint. According to the ASEAN official website, the program is a manifestation of ASEAN’s mission to promote a quality living standard in urban areas. Thereby, this program aimed to ensure that “cities/urban areas in ASEAN are environmentally sustainable while meeting the social and economic needs of the people”. The program involved 25 cities from the different 10 ASEAN member states. The cities picked are described as “smaller and rapidly-growing” urban areas.

Within this program, there are some activities such as the High-Level Seminar (HLS) on the Environmentally Sustainable Cities, ASEAN Model Cities Program, and the ASEAN Environmentally Sustainable Cities Award. The two latter examples were utilized as an incentive as well as benchmarking measures for the respective cities to develop.

As Southeast Asia is a home to the increasingly-urbanizing 580 million people, it is understandable that ASEAN puts a bigger emphasis on cities. The increasing role of urban areas as the bridge between the regional aspirations and the grassroots level, consequently, cannot be ignored.

In a bigger picture, cities have a significant role in localizing international goals such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) stipulated by the United Nations. Such efforts are harder to attain when the states cannot accurately translate the needs of their smaller constituent units.

Sub-state engagements can be done without necessarily breaching the core ASEAN principle which upholds sovereignty. With the lack of ASEAN awareness remains a haunting problem in realizing a Southeast Asian socio-cultural community, paradiplomacy offers a channel which connects people with the organization. In this case, the ASEAN Way should not be perceived as a stumbling block.

In contrast, the core ASEAN principles can be a common identity which brings a special colour toward the ASEAN paradiplomacy, enabling the parties to realize their shared identity and to achieve their collective interests in a peaceful manner.

Fifty years since its establishment, ASEAN has shown its progress as a dynamic and forward-looking regional organization. However, it also signifies that ASEAN still has more to offer in responding to the modern diplomatic trends. In this case, paradiplomacy can be a solution. Mainstreaming paradiplomacy can be a future investment for the organization to stay relevant with the needs of its heterogeneous constituents.

This can be done by creating new programs which give more portions to the local entities to participate. Member states, on the other hand, should also be committed to encouraging its sub-state units to stay on track with the regional vision in creating an inclusive community through an extensive public diplomacy.

*) Ario Bimo Utomo is a former research assistant at the ASEAN Studies Center UGM. He earned his master’s degree in International Relations from the University of Sydney, Australia.

Rifki Maulana Iqbal Taufik

The 50th anniversary of ASEAN is the right moment to evaluate every achievement and the projections for the future. An evaluation is not limited only to the implementation of program but how ASEAN is being presented in the society. ASEAN’s approach, so far, appears more elitist / state-centric, rather than people-oriented. This resulted in the lack of community understanding on ASEAN, what it does and how it affects their lives. In the context of Indonesia, based on data collected from ASC UGM 2014, about 65% of the people in Yogyakarta have never heard of ASEAN. If that is the case in a city as big as Yogyakarta, what about those living in remote areas? How the ideal of ASEAN Community can be accomplished if the at the ‘real’ community level, an understanding of ASEAN is limited. In other words, it is necessary to start bringing ASEAN to a more community level, involving the whole elements of the country, not just the government, to realize the aspirations of ASEAN Community 2015. At this point, ASEANization is first and foremost.

ASEAN as an Identity?

The Sociological conception of identity is also known as a collective identity. The basic assumption is that collective identity plays as narrative constructions which permit the control of the boundaries of a network of actors, The macro-theoretical argument says that the more a human society is differentiated, the more it needs a collective identity.

ASEAN has a large and culturally diverse population. In the other side, every country of ASEAN has developed the discourses about itself (national identity). It can be both opportunities and challenges at the same time

In its 50th anniversary, there are still many people who do not understand about ASEAN. Most of them know the existence of ASEAN but do not understand the role and function of this organization. This regard, one can say that ASEAN integration only exists at the state level but not at the community level.

So the most important thing today is how to make ASEAN identity as a normative character that is presented and institutionalized. Identity as an analytical concept covers all these elements: identity emerges by linking the past social relations with those in the present.

To reconstruct the identity of ASEAN, we can refer to history through the identification of structural boundaries and opportunities for historical connectivity. Let us depart from the historical narrative of the past. The kingdom of Southeast Asia has been connected long since the seventh century. The story of this period can be used as a reference in shaping the idea of ASEANization.

Just imagine, various cultures and empires in Southeast Asia interact, connect with each other and create a unity of ASEAN culture and identity. Therefore, it is important to understand that constructing ASEAN’s collective identity is not impossible since it has been historically formed for a long time. Institutionally, ASEAN needs to provide (establish) the institution that focuses on “ASEANization”.

ASEANization: Digital and Youth

With cultural diversity within ASEAN that have co-existed for centuries. The main thing to do is how to make the ASEAN identity is, therefore, understood as a narrative network embedded in social relations among people who live within ASEAN. Digital space can serve as a bridge for the ASEAN community. Increased interest in digitalization changes both social and economic life of human beings. Today, in the digital age, there is no limit to humanity. This phenomenon creates a new pattern of our participation as citizens. Moreover, today, digital space became the foundation of social interaction. Technology has changed social relationships and may have produced forms of identity beyond national boundaries. The existence of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media can be a factor encouraging the public participation to guard oversee ASEAN. This indicates that technology has a significant role in human nature and is regarded as one of the societal importance. In the end, it can be concluded that technology can be used as a tool for ASEANization. Youth are connected very strongly with technology. Hence, the internet as one part thereof is the way for them to accumulate, analyze, disseminate information and knowledge. The most important thing now is to take advantage of this reality, connecting youth through technology and make them the main agents of ASEANization.

Rifky Maulana Iqbal Taufik is a Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Dio Herdiawan Tobing

Unlike other regional or international organizations, ASEAN possesses its own model of diplomatic engagement: the ASEAN Way. For so many years, the ASEAN Way has always been a very heated topic of debate among the academics, government officials, and policy-makers. Now that ASEAN has reached its golden anniversary, the remained question is whether the ASEAN Way is still relevant, or must the organization employ other tools to foster its members’ cooperative behavior in agreed institutional arrangements.

In most academic literature, the ASEAN way is always to blame for any wide-array of cooperation failures, for instance: Indonesia on the haze problem, Myanmar on the Rohingya crisis, and the absence of ASEAN centrality in the South China Sea dispute.

The ASEAN Way is defined a shared of norms, principles, and values governing the interactions of ASEAN member states. It is more of a loosed concept but strictly embedded in the practice of ASEAN diplomacy. The problem is, in many kinds of literature the ASEAN Way has always been incorporated with ASEAN’s strict adherence to the principle of consensus-building, informality, non-interference, and respect to national sovereignty.

Indeed, from a strictly legal perspective, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation serves as the formal foundation of the ASEAN Way, whereby on Art. 2(c) of the agreement, it is emphasized that “In their relations with one another, the High Contracting Parties shall be guided by the following fundamental principles…non-interference in the internal affairs of one another”. However, the ASEAN Way is not defined as narrow as what enshrined in the treaty.

This is what one keeps on forgetting and neglecting in the kind of literature; as the ASEAN Way is not the goal, but rather a means of achieving collective interests. Hence, the process of norm and values sharing is dynamic and never been stagnant.

On the one side story, criticisms are frequently directed at the gameplay of ASEAN, which often pays too much respect for the above-mentioned principles. Nevertheless, the ASEAN Way is the only possible method that could be employed by the regional institution and its members, as it is shared on daily basis beyond the limits of their consciousness. Intriguingly, the ASEAN Way is neither a failure nor a weakness. As many are not aware of, on the other side of the ‘blame’, lies a powerful instrument: the ASEAN Constructive Engagement.

The ASEAN Constructive Engagement

ASEAN utilized the Constructive Engagement (CE) at Myanmar in the 1990s to foster democratization. It was not introduced as an alternative of the ASEAN Way, yet inseparable for they share the same ‘blood’. The CE prefers a bilateral or multilateral method of engagement by favoring dialogue, opposing the policies of compulsion including sanctions and diplomatic isolation employed by the west.

As matter of fact, the CE is not only utilized by ASEAN in Myanmar’s case. In any other issues, CE informally and unconsciously uses as a method of engagement among ASEAN Countries, whether it is facilitated by ASEAN Secretariat, bilateral or multilateral engagement under the greater umbrella of ASEAN cooperation, or in any diplomatic forums.

Furthermore, CE does not offer a sudden policy shift of any ASEAN member states to adhere towards regional goals, but rather emphasizes on the ‘engagement process’. This is why, in the f by any government in ASEAN.

Some may view this as a disadvantage. However, CE is a promising tool in offering gradual changes in dispute settlement mechanism without harassing any conflicting parties in public spaces.

Two concrete examples of the result of CE can be seen from the policy change of Myanmar towards the Rohingya and Indonesia’s accession to the ASEAN Transboundary Haze Pollution Agreement as presented below.

Constructive Engagement: A Tale of Two Case Studies

Even though CE was introduced in early 1991 to induce Myanmar’s cooperative behavior to ASEAN, the effort continued even after Myanmar become one of ASEAN members, especially to persuade Myanmar to become more open to the international community and not treating the Rohingya minority group violently.  

The result was not instant. From 1991 to 2008 there was almost no change in Myanmar policy towards the Rohingya. The country insisted the Rohingya massacre has nothing to do with their country for the Rohingya is not part of the Burmese community. Not until in 2008 when Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar, which resulted in the first attempt of regional “humanitarian intervention” to assist Myanmar in recovery. It is imperative to note the regional assistance set up by ASEAN and its members to help Myanmar had broken the problematic stigma of ASEAN’s ‘fixed price’ devotion to the principle of non-interference and traditional concept of sovereignty.

The successful attempt of ASEAN to assist Myanmar recovering from the impact of such humanitarian disaster, served as the pathway to improve the government’s openness to the regional community. In fact, as per 2009, Indonesia played a leading role in opening a bilateral talk with the Burmese government, calling for a greater attention to this Muslim minority. Surprisingly, this occasion functioned as the turning point where the Burmese government finally admitted that the Rohingya problem also belongs to Myanmar. Prime Minister Thein Sein, stated that “in principle, the Myanmar is willing to accept the Rohingyas back if they can prove they are indeed the people of Myanmar”.

Another breathtaking result also occurred in late-2016. At the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of ASEAN on September 30, 2016, Aung San Suu Kyi, finally asked “constructive support” from Myanmar’s regional neighbors to resolve the crisis in the country’s troubled western Rakhine state. The step was then followed by the establishment of a special panel of an investigation, headed by the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.

In the Southeast Asian haze catastrophe, ASEAN also utilizes similar approach to persuade Indonesia to pay attention towards the issue. Resulted from thorough bilateral and multilateral discussions, there were at least three events which marked Indonesia’s non-defensive behavior to ASEAN. First, Indonesia had never blocked ASEAN from adopting any resolution, since the Singapore Declaration, where the haze issue was first mentioned, to the making of haze agreement. Second, Indonesia signed the agreement in 2002 and third, in late-2014, Indonesia concluded its accession to the agreement.

It certainly is a long process. In the case of Myanmar, it took more or less 25 years for the Burmese government to acknowledged Rohingya as a problem that needs further attention and finally called for regional arrangements to assist Myanmar in solving this humanitarian catastrophe. For Indonesia, it needs 11 years for the government to finally decide to abide the law.

Conclusion

Through a long norm and values-sharing process, though many kinds of literature discredit how the ASEAN Way’s strict adherence to consensus decision-making, non-interference, and sovereignty hinders the organization to pursue progress in some areas of cooperation, one must understand that it is the ASEAN Way that has led ASEAN to reach its 50th anniversary.

Blaming the failure of cooperation in ASEAN on the ASEAN Way will prevent us from seeing how ASEAN has made progress since the organization was formed. Furthermore, what many kinds of literature have forgotten is that the ASEAN Way embraces CE, which emphasizes on a non-confrontational approach of diplomacy but offering gradual changes, even in some areas of cooperation that seen to be very sensitive by ASEAN.  What needs to be understood is the non-incorporation of the ASEAN Way in assessing ASEAN will never be the right case. Therefore, after the 50th anniversary, the ASEAN Way and CE will always be the nature of ASEAN cooperation because it does not matter if the ‘tool’ is still relevant or not, yet there will be no ASEAN without the ASEAN Way.

*) Dio Herdiawan Tobing is the Research Manager of ASEAN Studies Center UGM. He will start his LLM in Public International Law at Leiden University in September.

Dendy Raditya A.

On August 8th this year, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will celebrate its 50th anniversary. This is the right time to reflecting on what had been done from 1967 until now and what need to do in the future, not only by ASEAN as an organization but also by the whole elements within ASEAN.

What could be reflected from the 50 years of ASEAN and the studies associated with this organization? Historically, the embryo of studies about this region –which historian Anthony Reid called as ‘the lands below the winds’ could be traced back to the colonial era. The study of Southeast Asia originally developed at the Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes founded in Paris around 1795, followed by the Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (Royal Institute for Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies at Leiden University, Netherlands at 1864, and finally the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London in 1917.

After the end of the colonialism, Modern Southeast Asian Studies, likes the study of other regions, was born from the interests of Western countries (especially the United States) post-World War II to understand the social, cultural, political and economic aspects of countries in Southeast Asia in a postcolonial context.

It is important to first, understand the difference between the ASEAN and Southeast Asian Studies. The most visible difference is the scope of studies: ASEAN Studies focus more on ASEAN as an institution and tends to be more policy-oriented, while Southeast Asian Studies focus more on social, cultural, economic and, to some extent, political aspects of society in the region.  

Likewise, the Southeast Asia Studies faces challenges in its development. There are three interesting issues faced by Southeast Asian Studies (and also ASEAN Studies): The problem of inequality between Western countries and ASEAN countries in the terms of knowledge production; the problems of studying Southeast Asia from within; and the position of contemporary Southeast Asian Studies between state’s and market’s interests.

The disproportion between the Western countries and Southeast Asian countries (as a locus of Southeast Asian Studies and ASEAN Studies) is evident in the production of political-economy knowledge of this studies. Achmad Firas and Iqra Anugrah argues that this problem exists since the early days of the formulation of both Southeast Asian studies and ASEAN Studies. Instead by their own people, the knowledge of Southeast Asia was generated by social institutions and scientists from Western countries.

Syed Farid Alatas once wrote that the inequality of knowledge production has resulted in a growing dependence of the scientist and social science institution in Southeast Asia on the Western world. These dependencies include the idea dependence, media dependency to disseminate ideas, the dependence of educational technology, dependence on research and education funding, and dependence of Third World social scientists (including Southeast Asia) on employment in the scientific field of the Western countries.

The other problem is in regard to the possibility of Southeast Asian to study about the Southeast Asia and ASEAN of their own. According to Ariel Heryanto, there at least four issues faced by Southeast Asian researchers who came from this region itself.

First, the status of researchers as an “insider” of the  Southeast Asian societies, creates a dilemma: sometimes they are too qualified in language, living experience and knowledge of their own communities, but less qualified in analytical thinking and academic theorization.

Second, the dominance of English as the language of instruction in the Southeast Asian studies, with the lack of use of the regional languages itself. One fact behind this condition is that the main consumers of the ASEAN and Southeast Asia studies are those who come from the Western countries, not from Southeast Asia itself.

Third, there is a discrepancy between the institution’s objectives, the Southeast Asia Studies Center, on what to look for and the method to use with the social reality in Southeast Asia. It leads to the fourth issue, namely the patronistic relationship in research. Ariel Heryanto illustrates it in a condition when a senior researcher “forced” his junior to quote his work.

There is also the issue of a pitfall among the interests of states and the market. The social disciplines of Southeast Asia post-independence era became a tool of the state to legitimize the policies adopted by rulers. In Indonesia for example, the use of social science for the sake of power was evident in the era known as the “New Order”, when many public intellectuals served as bureaucrats within the regime. The New Order era also put forward the idea of developmentalism and modernization, which in turn eliminating critical paradigms such as class-based analysis and critical theory.

The collapse of many authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia does not necessarily make the study of Southeast Asia more developed. This happens because nowadays, the interests of the market along with the ideology of neoliberalism has penetrated into the realm of scholars around the world. It causes marginalization and limited access to research funding, especially those from scholarships that are deemed to have no “impacts”.

Although the problems faced by the Southeast Asian Studies had made it difficult for them to academically develop in a post-authoritarian scene, there are efforts to bridging the difficulties by various Southeast Asian Studies and Review institutions. The establishment of numbers of institution in Singapore for example, such as the ISEAS (Institute for Southeast Asian Studies), ARI (Asia Research Institute) at NUS (National University of Singapore) and RSIS (Rajaratnam School of International Studies) at the NTU (Nanyang Technological University); Thailand with the ASEAN Studies Center at Chulalongkorn University; and Indonesia with the Center for Southeast Asian Social Studies  and the ASEAN Studies Center at Universitas Gadjah Mada can be considered as part of these efforts.

Coinciding with the ASEAN golden anniversary, I suggest that we should rethink about the future of ASEAN Studies besides, of course, Southeast Asian Studies. ASEAN now faces many challenges such as the emergence of many new issues: the digital society, demands for inclusive and sustainable development inside ASEAN Community, global terrorism, identity conflicts, migrant and human trafficking issues, maritime governance, and more. It is necessary to further investigate these issues rather share ASEAN’s relevance in world politics.

Thus, it is important for researchers from the ASEAN and Southeast Asian studies to undertake a critical and theoretical research—and not only the policy-oriented one. It is also important to dismantle the ‘established’ concept and policy reference narrative in the existing studies. ASEAN Studies needs an emancipatory as well as practical dimension.

At the end of the day, the shout goes to all Southeast Asian researchers, especially throughout Indonesia. Call for them to keep on reading, writing and researching to celebrate the 50th anniversary of ASEAN!

*) Dendy Raditya Atmosuwito is an Undergraduate Student at the Department of Public Policy and Management, Fisipol, Universitas Gadjah Mada