by M. Daffa Syauqi A (Photo by Lance Cpl. Kasey Peacock)

It has been 52 years since the conception of ASEAN in 1967 as the leading inter-state organization in Southeast Asia. Built on the spirit of similar history as former colonialized coutry as well to prevent the spread of Communism in the region, ASEAN has steadily making progress in various aspects within state-building process such as security, economy as well as cultural cooperation. It was further emphasized by the creation of three pillars consisted of Political-Security Community, Economic Community, as well as Socio-Cultural Community (ASEAN, 2015) as the framework for the following actions taken by ASEAN to further integrate the region. However with such progress the capability of ASEAN to enforce the recognition of declaration it made must be questioned, especially when it touched the sphere of Political-Security Community that are still often considered as ‘taboo’ and ‘sensitive’ issue. In this paper the author would like to bring up the issue of ASEAN principles in protecting various ruling class policies and actions within ASEAN state members, the issue will be exemplified in three countries which are Indonesia, Phillippines, and Myanmar.

Within the scope of ASEAN, it was acknowledged that the principle of non-intereference signed in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 1976 proved to be a vital instrument in keeping order in ASEAN (ASEAN, 1976) to allow each of the state members to respect each other domestic politics and promised not to intervene within each other affairs. Within Political-Security matter, this might cause a contradicting policy to be applied in various Southeast Asian states considering that most of the countries still have tendency to fall into dictatorship as military influence within the newly-born democratic ideas are still gripping strong in these countries. Such example could be seen on the direct violation of ASEAN Human Rights Declaration that was signed in 2012 at Phnom Penh, Cambodja (ASEAN, 2012) that defines the general principles of Human Rights protection in Southeast Asia consisted of Civil & Political rights, Economic, Social and Cultural rights, Right to Development and Right to Peace. In this case, the audience may see Indonesia under Joko Widodo administration brutally repressing Papua demonstrator for their demand of independence due to the lack of development in the region (Tasevski, 2019), then Philippines within Duterte’s administration where thousands of people died due to its brutal crackdown on drugdealers and users that are rampant within the country (Ellis-Petersen, 2018), and last but not least the ethnic genocide of Rohingya that currently happened in Myanmar under the watch of Noble prize winner Aung San Suu Kyii and regarded as one of the worst genocidal case in Southeast Asia (Safdar & Siddiqui, 2019).

Despite these atrocities, there are no single action from ASEAN or its state members to stop these policies besides ‘condemning’ the action or simply sending in protests. The principle of non-interference stands as the lack of rigid enforcer of Human Rights Declaration ASEAN has made few years prior. Be it reminded that when it was brought within the context of local politics, both of these leaders have appeased to the populists demands in the creation of these policies. Without any enforcer entity stronger than the overall position of state members, ASEAN will upheld its status quo in reserving its lack of willingness in the creation of, in this case, human rights norms within the region meanwhile allowing more atrocities to happen. In comparison to European Union, they had clear and distinct bureaucratic level, the creation of European Commission as the executive branch of regional decision-making as well as Court of Justice of the European Union that acts judiscial entity of the region, making a clear indication that European Union is indeed one-way above state, wielding the capability to bring out the jurisdiction and enforcement to its member states upon dealing with an issue.

In ASEAN however, it is often doubted that ASEAN will not be able to create nor willing to create similar position as European Union has made now, considering that the status quo that is currently going on in ASEAN right now is working in ruling class’ favor. The requirement of having able to settle one’s issue without any interference from outside actors proved to be an invaluable elements that ASEAN can provide to its member states as state-building progress are considered to be far more important than other issues, therefore each of the ruling class in member states cannot afford to have an uprising or movement that challenges their state-building progress.

Reference List

ASEAN. (2015). Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II. Retrieved from http://www.asean.org/news/item/declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-bali-concord-ii

ASEAN, (1976). Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976. Retrieved from https://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/

ASEAN, (2012). ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from <https://www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/6_AHRD_Booklet.pdf>

Tasevski, O., (2019). “West Papua’s Quest for Independence”. The Diplomat. Retrieved from < https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/west-papuas-quest-for-independence/>

Ellis-Petersen, H., (2018). “Duterte’s Philippines drug war death toll rises above 5,000.” The Guardian. Retrieved from < https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/19/dutertes-philippines-drug-war-death-toll-rises-above-5000>

Safdar, A. & Usaid Siddque, (2019). “ICJ speech: Suu Kyi fails to use ‘Rohingya’ to describe minority.” Al-Jazeera. Retrieved from < https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/aung-san-suu-kyi-fails-word-rohingya-icj-speech-191212102606322.html>

M. Daffa Syauqi A is a last year Undergraduate student majoring in International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Daffa is currently working as an intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM. He could be reached through email daffa.syauqi97@gmail.com.

Written by Muhammad Ammar Hidayahtulloh (Picture: Jeffrey Beall)

Introduction

Geographically speaking, ASEAN region is one of the most vulnerable regions to disaster in the world. There are several tectonic plates across ASEAN region that potentially cause the earthquake, volcanic eruption, and tsunami. In addition, ASEAN faces the increasing extreme climate events in frequency and intensity due to climate variation and change. Therefore, nearly all ASEAN Member States (AMS) have experienced natural disaster causing the severe devastation in the recent years, such as Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, Yogyakarta Earthquake in 2006, Cyclone Nargis in 2008, Thailand Floods in 2011, Cyclone Haiyan in 2013, Bagan Earthquake in 2016, and Central Sulawesi Earthquake and Tsunami in last September 2018.

Given that situation, it is sufficient to say that the effective and efficient disaster management is highly needed for ASEAN region. The regional mechanism on disaster management must be managed and accelerated in comprehensive manner. Otherwise, 635.9 million inhabitants living in the region are threatened by the disaster.

ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community: An Overview

The Declaration of ASEAN Concord II or well-known as Bali Concord II was adopted by ten ASEAN Leaders during the 9^th ASEAN Summit on 7^th October 2003 in Bali Indonesia. It became the legal basis for ASEAN Community comprising three pillars by 2020, namely political and security cooperation, economic cooperation, and socio-cultural cooperation. Yet, the strong belief and commitment of ASEAN leaders had brought ASEAN to accelerate the establishment of ASEAN Community on 2015 by adopting the Cebu Declaration in 2007.

The first ASCC Blueprint was introduced in 2009 which stated the prominent goal of the ASCC is to establish a people-centered and socially responsible community. Within the framework of ASCC, ASEAN is characterized to social welfare and protection. In the following, second ASCC Blueprint was introduced in the end of 2015 to realize the ASEAN Vision 2025, continuing the effective implementation of its predecessor in developing and strengthening the socio-cultural cooperation in ASEAN. It includes the commitment of ASEAN to enhance its capacity in realizing a disaster-resilient ASEAN that is able to anticipate, respond, cope, adapt, and build back better, smarter, and faster.

Challenges and Dilemma

            The world’s politics is no longer talking about security in very static manner. The survival of state has been challenged with the shifting of traditional security threat to non-traditional security threat.Non-traditional security issues have become significantly common in almost all parts of society and have gained its concern in global political arena after 9/11 tragedy. It is reaffirmed by Spijkers (2007), he described that the security threat is not always military in nature, but there is other threat which is the forces of nature that threaten the existence of large groups of individuals.

However, human security in ASEAN is still considered as debatable despite its current development of regional mechanism on human rights. A so-called the ASEAN Way, is a fundamental norm of ASEAN and for that reason ASEAN also established. Within the ASEAN Way norm, it constructed the norms of respect for national sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, the non-use of force, and a consensus-based decision-making mechanism. The ASEAN Way norm in itself has both conflictual and harmonious characteristics, and is both a challenge and an opportunity for the region.

The case of 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar was evident to explain the ASEAN Way norm as a challenge for the region. The non-interference principle remains a major block for ASEAN in taking further action in the aftermath of that disaster. The junta’s regime in Myanmar rejected the international offers of aid relief due to the state-centric view on security. The fear of external party to gain access to the country perceived as the more serious threat against the state security in compare to the security of thousands of victims who were in dehydration, hunger and dying situation.

ASEAN Regional Mechanism in Enhancing Disaster-Resilient Community

            The case of 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar should have not happened in the very first place. ASEAN has envisioned the people-centered community in the socio-cultural pillar which means, the security of the people of ASEAN should be central in ASEAN’s agenda. Therefore, the ASEAN Way norm should be also well-actualized in addressing the non-traditional security issues, especially disaster events that might be threatening the whole region.

Rum (2016), the AMS’s sovereignty can be upheld without neglecting the security of the people through establishing the regime of regional disaster management as there are norms by which influence state to do so. Through setting up the regime and institutionalizing the disaster management cooperation will also address the other aforementioned challenges. Therefore, it is clear that ASCC is established in the very first place to be a platform of ASEAN in tackling the issue of natural disaster.

The first attempt of ASEAN in enhancing the cooperation in disaster management can be traced back to the 1^st ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Disaster Management (AMMDM) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 7^th December 2004. The ACDM comprising Heads of National Disaster Management Organizations (NDMOs) of AMS was established as the result of the key decisions made out of the meeting. The ACDM was mandated to start the negotiation of the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). AADMER which signed on 26^th July 2005 and came into force on 24^th December 2009, is one of the cornerstones of the ASEAN commitment in building disaster-resilient community.

In supporting the realization of disaster-resilient community, the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre) was established under the AADMER by adopting the agreement on 17^th November 2011. AHA Centre becomes the main actor, together with the AMMDM and ACMD in disaster management cooperation. In this manner, the author signifies the prominent role of AHA Centre to reduce losses to disasters and coordinate ASEAN’s collective response to disasters.

There are two other important legal frameworks adopted by ASEAN in order to strengthen its commitment regarding this matter, namely ASEAN Declaration on Enhancing Cooperation in Disaster Management (2013) and ASEAN Declaration on One ASEAN, One Response: ASEAN Responding to Disasters as One in the Region and outside the Region (2016). For further work, AHA Centre formulated the ASEAN Joint Disaster Response Plan (AJDRP) which endorsed at the 29^th Meeting of the ACDM held in Manado, Indonesia on 11^th October 2016. By the implementation of AJDRP, AHA Centre is able to: (i) increasing the speed of the ASEAN response by supporting AMS in making timely and informed decisions, (ii) expanding the scale of the ASEAN response by strengthening the ASEAN Standby Arrangements, and (iii) enhancing the solidarity of the ASEAN response by strengthening coordination and cooperation among AMS, ASEAN partners, and other related actors.

Case of Earthquake and Tsunami in Central Sulawesi

The ASEAN region, for the umpteenth time hit by a disaster event specifically the M 7.4 earthquake and tsunami in Palu, Indonesia that was occurred on 28^th September 2018. AHA Centre operated in Palu for more than a month after the disaster hit Central Sulawesi. Through AHA Centre and the One ASEAN, One Response, ASEAN had contributed the most significant assistance post-disaster by coordinating the responses from other AMS, from the financial assistance into the other form of humanitarian assistance.In ensuring the response of AHA Centre fast and right on the target, it also supported by the ASEAN Secretary-General, Japan through Japan-ASEAN Integration Fund (JAIF), International Humanitarian NGO such as Map Action which based in the United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU) and also the UN Agencies, such as the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA).

Move Forward

Lacking of disaster management cooperation is fatal and potentially endangering the people in the region. Along with the unity of effort and the spirit of ASEAN, ASCC through AHA Centre and other regional mechanism can realize a disaster-resilient community without undermining the AMS’ sovereignty. Today, ASEAN is the global leader in regional disaster management cooperation by being able to anticipate, respond, cope, adapt, and build back better, smarter, and faster with the existing regional mechanisms. Additionally, it becomes a hope of ASEAN that it is able to respond outside the region as one under the framework of One ASEAN, One Response.

Written by Nathania Vivian Hermawan (Picture: Basile Morin)

Introduction

At the 32^nd ASEAN Summit, countries approved Singapore’s chairmanship theme, “Innovative and Resilient”, as an articulation of their strategic position in this shifting economic landscape. One of the encapsulation of this theme is ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), a network that synergise 26 IoT-based cities across the region aiming to solve urban population growth and rapid urbanizations. Looking at current wave of innovation in Southeast Asia, ASEAN has started to turn “sci-fi” smart cities into reality –but surely it takes time.

Smart City Trend in 21^st Century

The world is imagining a innovative, efficient, and pollution-free city. This may sounds like a utopia, but all this imagination is what the Internet of Things (IoT) promises to transform our cities into smart cities. Smart cities worldwide are incorporating data and digital technologies into infrastructure and services—delivering tangible improvement of quality of life (QOL) as an outcome.

In 2015, Bristol of United Kingdom launched Data Dome, a public platform which provide real-time data of air quality, pollution, and noise. Barcelona implemented Barcelona Lighting Masterplan (BLM) which designed to enhance the efficiency of streetlamps. Lights will dim when streets are empty to conserve energy. Through smart lighting, Barcelona save $37 million annually.

Basically, these countries have the same model of smart city project in ASEAN.

Why ASCN matters

• Dense Population

41.8 percent of Southeast Asia’s total population or almost 245 million peopleis now concentrated in urban areas, making cities more significant as key drivers of social and economic development.Megacities like Manila and Jakarta both have a population of over 10 million, while Bangkok and Ho Chi Minh City have more than 5 million inhabitants respectively. More than a half of total population in Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand is agglomerated in cities, while Singapore as the frontrunner of smart city has 100% of its population living in urban areas.

ASEAN may be entering a troubling “urbanization without growth”, where rapid urban population rate no longer goes hand in hand with great economic outcome and rising living standards.Dense population raises many issues such as traffic congestion, air pollution, housing shortage, infrastructure access and waste management.

Bangkok and Jakarta is the two most congested cities in Asia, while housing shortage is a major issue cities like Manila have to deal with. Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand compiled with China are dumping plastic waste into oceans more than the total of rest of the worldshows that our people is not smart enough in managing waste.

• Economic Integration

ASCN will strengthen economic integration between Southeast Asian countries –the biggest goal of ASEAN Economic Community. ASCN allows countries to share best practice and explore new technological solutions on urban problems.

• Industry 4.0

For developing world such as in ASEAN, fourth industrial revolution is haunting, since new technologies cause less utilization of human labour. Beside that, millennials must compete in the digital era notwithstanding access to technology is not as easy as those in core countries.

The Minister of Finance of Indonesia, Sri Mulyani, once stated, “Industrial 4.0 will benefit the more advanced countries and countries with more capitals.” Therefore, without new initiative such as building smart cities, developing countries in ASEAN will face even worse disequilibrium in a progressive world because core countries are now seem poised with the coming of fourth industrial revolution.IoT and Smart Citiesis expected to revolutionize the mindset and people’s habit so they will not be left behind in Industry 4.0.

Initial Stage of ASCN

By now, there is a wave of innovation across Southeast Asian countries. Increasing numbers of digital citizen apps, ride-hailing apps like Go-Jek, intelligent traffic systems, data-driven disaster-risk assessment, and an automation systems to manage congestion like ERP upgrade people’s quality of life.But, some just begin to make legal policies and also facing budgetary issues.

• Malaysia has Cyberjaya as its first smart city and emerging Global Technology Hub after the installation big data board about daily weather, traffics, or even parking slots.
• Juniper Research enthroneSingapore as the smartest city in the world ahead of New York, London, and Seoul.
• Thailand at first only promoted three pilot cities, but now it develops four more cities that isBangkok, Chon Buri, Rayong, and Chaochengsao. Rapid flourishment of the smart city is due to pursuing the Thailand 4.0, an initiative to accomplish status as high-income nations and as digital economy hub of ASEAN. Thailand is also establishing Smart City Thailand Association.
• Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, launched Qlue app, a real-time reporting application from residents to government to improve public participation. There is also Banyuwangi“Smart Kampong” features operator to connect small and medium enterprises with online shopping site, Banyuwangi-Mall.com.
• Philippines implemented Project NOAH (Nationwide Operational Assessment Hazard) in 2012, a primary disaster prevention, risk reduction, and risk management program by using IT network, because Philippines was always hit by typhoon several times in a year.
• Vietnam expects to have Ho Chi Minh, Da Nang, and Can Tho as its first smart city in 2030 and now it is just building legal policies and infrastructure foundation foremost 5G network to enhance the performance of IoT and create a wireless-power city.
• Brunei has Temburong Smart City project which aims a ‘low-carbon district’ that emits net zero carbon through ICT. Government assesses appropriate capacity of power sources to provide electricity to Temburong area, which consists of Solar/PV and diesel power generators, by computer simulation.
• Cambodia’s private company,7NG (Cambodia) Co., Ltd, is currently working on the legal documents with government to achieve Kandal as Intelligent and Innovation City project plan into reality as soon as possible. But local newspapers say Cambodia is still lack of holistic planning and regulations regarding Phnom Penh smart city project.

Main Challenges

Firstly, countries who are just starting to build smart cities lack of investment from business developers. They should launch programmes, including business-to-business and mission trips, to promote these smart city projects to investors. While as mentioned above, some countries is not wholly finished yet in managing its legal policies and master plan.

Prime Minister Lee HsienLoong also realize the major challenges of the first step to actualize ASCN, that is, “to make the implementation and to change the ways in which our cities and our administrations operate to make full use of the technology…” Government has responsibility in raising awareness about smart city to its citizens because they will be critical constituent of the smart city implementation.

Lastly, after six months of smart city ideas, technological sharing have not been seen. Each countries are making partnership with developed countries and major companies beyond ASEAN. As stated by Vietnam Ministry of Information and Communication, governments experience difficulty in providing adequate infrastructure and IT human resources so Vietnam have to find support from UK Commonwealth Foundation. Malaysia adopt smart city platform from AlibabaChinese company. South Korea is the one who pushes Cambodia public housing project through the state-run Korea Land and Housing Corp.

Member countries are still making its own path to get their smart city goals. In addition, those practices allow foreign companies to infiltrate domestic business process more easily.

Technological Readiness

To implement ASCN by 2020, governments should ensure that its own system can advance IoT performance through adoption of supporting equipment. The table shows gap between ASEAN countries in their technological readiness to implementASCN.

Table 1.
ASEAN Technology Preparedness

Conclusion

Singapore as the chairman of ASEAN and the smartest city among world countries has strived for a smarter Southeast Asia. Yes, every member states of ASEAN has begun to adopt ASEAN Smart Cities Network but it faces problems such as lack of investmentand technology. Governments have to change digital mindset of the people too. ASEAN are getting closer to the utopia of smart cities, but it demands greater cooperation to eventually get there.

Singapore should be a mentor to its neighbouring countries to make every city resilient from urbanization and also fourth industrial revolution challenges. Conversely, other countries mustinnovate to be “another Singapore” in the region.

ASEAN countries, after all, have frameworks in preparing ASCN, but in reality even Myanmar and Vietnam is not adopting IPv6 yeteventhough it is an important tools to support IoT. ASCN thus should push more member countries to provide technological aid and share models to their neighbours, and actively meet in forums to report its obstacle and improvement of smart cities.

Written by Salimah Idzaturrohim (picture: US Department of State)

Introduction

ASEAN was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, which was initiated by 5 countries, which were Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Today ASEAN has 10 member countries, with Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Cambodia (ASEAN, 2018). The unification of the ten countries undeniably shows that ASEAN is composed of various ethnicities, cultures, languages and religions united under the ASEAN name. This shows how ASEAN is really an organization which unifies diversity. More than just a block or geographical area that forms a group of countries, ASEAN is a network, life-world, trading systems and pathways for human contact (Noor, 2017).

In diversity, ASEAN seeks to form a common identity. Diversity is often regarded as one of the obstacles in forming a common identity. Unlike the European Union, ASEAN has high diversity. Uniting requires good integration with each other. According to ASEAN’s General Secretary, Le Luong Minh, ASEAN’s successes to carry out integration which suits the member state’s diverse culture, region, and political systems have created strength for the ten countries (VOV, 2015). This shows how ASEAN has become innovative and resilient. It can form a unique integration which unites all ASEAN country and changes the notion that diversity serves as a “disadvantage.” Therefore, today ASEAN has been able to see diversity as the energy that has strengthen itself. The “Unity in Diversity” has become a milestone for ASEAN in forming a common identity which is still in its efforts to be achieved.

The Socio-Cultural Pillar is one of the three pillars of the ASEAN Community which has a very important role in building an ASEAN identity. The main component of the Socio-Cultural pillar is the active role and contribution which ASEAN member states have made to add value to the identity of ASEAN. The youth are members of ASEAN citizens with great potential and today they have shown interest in the socio-cultural sector of ASEAN. Therefore, ASEAN youth have been considered to take an important role in building an ASEAN identity.

Socio-Cultural Cooperation as ASEAN’s Focus to Build ASEAN Identity

ASEAN has a vision as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, which are able to look outwardly, live in peace, stability and prosperity, and bond together in partnership, dynamic development and in a community of caring societies (ASEAN, 2018). One of the ways this vision was realized was in October 2003 at the 9th ASEAN Summit in Bali (Indonesia) when ASEAN leaders decided to build the ASEAN Community in 2020. However, the ASEAN Community was realized 5 years earlier in 2015 to adjust with the rapid changes in international conditions. ASEAN leaders signed the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on the establishment of the ASEAN community in 2015 on 22 November 2015 at the ASEAN Summit in Malaysia. The ASEAN Community is composed of three community pillars, consisting of the ASEAN Political-Security Community (ASC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC). In general, the aim of the ASEAN Community is to make ASEAN “a harmonious group, the people of Southeast Asia, the stick in a social community of mutual reassurance.”

For ASEAN, getting to know one another’s culture is important because ASEAN is built on a collection of multicultural nations, multi-ethnicity, so socio-cultural cooperation is one of ASEAN’s concerns. In the field of socio-culture, ASCC focuses on humanity to build and improve living standards and improve the welfare of the people. In general, the aim is to strengthen the relationship between ASEAN countries in a community, develop evenly in all member countries, and build harmonization with “social care and share” (Trung Van, 2017). Quoted from ASEAN, “ASCC is committed to opening a world of opportunities to collectively deliver and fully realise human development, resiliency and sustainable development through Member States’ cooperation on a wide range of area, including: culture and information, education, youth and sports, health, social welfare and development, women and gender, rights of the women and children, labor, civil service, rural development and poverty eradication, environment, transboundary haze-pollution, disaster management and humanitarian assistance” (ASEAN, 2018). To realize its objectives, various programs were prepared by the ASCC as an effort to achieve the objectives in the development of the ASEAN community.

On 31 July 2017 at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Hall, Makati Philippines, ASEAN 2017 Dialogues was held to discuss “ASEAN Identity.” The forum was organized by the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO), and supported by the Asia Society Philippines.

The forum was attended by over 100 guests who participated in the “people-centered” discussion of the socio-cultural pillar. The discussion on this socio-culture pillar focused on ASEAN identity and the role of ASEAN socio-culture in building that identity (Ver, 2017). It was discussed that the main component of the socio-culture pillar is the active role and contribution in which ASEAN member states have made to add value to the identity of ASEAN countries. The discussion brought up the planning of commemorative activities for the 50th year anniversary of the association, an exhibit in the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, and the Brunei Darussalam — Indonesia — Malaysia — Philippines East Asia Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) Summit held in Saranggani and joining programs like the ASEAN Youth Camp as examples of how ASEAN member states can contribute to building the ASEAN identity (Ver, 2017). These activities are carried out to encourage engagement between the ASEAN community which allows the exchanging and sharing of culture, respecting of each country’s ‘unique culture and institutional identities,’ and enabling work towards a unified ASEAN identity (Ver, 2017). Respecting each ASEAN member’s culture is a simple way to build awareness that ASEAN is unity, and is inseparable from one another. If this attitude for culture between ASEAN countries can be formed, it will be easier to work together to develop together an ASEAN identity without prioritizing the ego or the interests of just one or several members.

To develop socio-culture cooperation, ASEAN has attempted to spearhead projects which encourage community involvement among ASEAN countries themselves. Cross-country activities such as sports competitions, art exhibitions, trade activities, and tourism have been widely carried out and are still growing. In sports competitions such as ASEAN Games, it is not only a matter of winning matches but also providing opportunities for participants to establish connections with people of different backgrounds and cultures. In other cross-country activities, there is always the opportunity to exchange cultures with each other (Kit and Spykerman, 2016). In the tourism sector, intra-ASEAN tourism, travel and migration continue to increase. We can now see the ASEAN backpacker phenomenon where more ASEAN citizens are visiting different ASEAN countries. This phenomenon arises from young ASEAN (Noor, 2017). Aside from traveling, backpacker activities carried out by the ASEAN youth also often bring humanitarian missions to the destination country. In Indonesia, in particular, there are numerous organizations that organizes volunteering or youth exchange with the backpacker method. This is certainly a place for the ASEAN youth to get to know different ASEAN cultures.

ASEAN Youth Today is the Future of ASEAN Tomorrow

“Today’s youth is tomorrow’s future.” The quote is familiar to us. It is undeniable that the youth create milestones in civilization. Not only are they citizens of the world but the youth have the obligation to bring positive change to their environment (Bobby, 2016). The United Nations defines the youth to be between the ages of 15 and 24 years (UNESCO, 2002). Youth is a transition from childhood to adulthood. There is a term, childhood means acceptance, and maturity means conservatism, and youth means rebellion (Heaven and Tubridy, 2008).  Rebellion referred to here can be viewed from a positive perspective where they can bring change to improve lives. The youth do not only accept what they get from the environment, but think about the environment and try to rebel in order to change, build and develop the environment. In addition, in contrast to conservative adults, the youth are expected to be innovative.

The youth of every country certainly have the desire to develop their countries. However, ASEAN youth have the desire to also develop ASEAN. The difference is, the ASEAN youth play a part on a broader scope, more than just regional areas, but a world community that connects people in it, namely ASEAN (Noor, 2017). In 2016, the total population of all ASEAN countries was recorded at 635.9 million, and the number continues to increase every year. More than 50% of the population is under 30 years old which means it is a productive age or it can be said that most of the ASEAN population forms the youth population (Statista, 2018).

ASEAN Youth Collaboration to Build ASEAN Identity

Seeing the phenomenon in the intra-ASEAN tourism, travel and migration sector, the ASEAN youth have shown interest in each other’s cultures. It has been discussed previously if the youth are important members of a nation and civilization, so are the ASEAN youth. Today’s ASEAN youth is the future of ASEAN tomorrow. They will be the face of ASEAN in the future. ASEAN tomorrow is what the ASEAN youth are doing today. Seeing the great enthusiasm of the ASEAN youth towards each other shows their potential to play a key role as agents to build an ASEAN identity.

Programs or activities which support intra-ASEAN cultural exchanges have been carried out, such as youth camps, cultural camps, and student exchanges. This grants the idea to form a collaboration of and between the youth from all ASEAN member states to introduce their culture to the world under the

ASEAN name. This is similar to youth exchange activities which are usually carried out by a country’s representative to present the name of their country before other countries proudly. But now the scope is greater, for the youth would unite as ASEAN. There would no longer be an intra-ASEAN but inter-ASEAN program. Through this program, it is with hope that the youth will feel proud as an ASEAN member when they conduct, for instance, cultural exchange or youth exchange to countries outside ASEAN. But, before they do cultural exchanges to other countries as a united ASEAN, of course they would need to prepare by studying each other’s cultures. To the world, ASEAN countries themselves are well-known as friendly countries, highly tolerant, have a warm sense of citizenship and togetherness as depicted through the ASEAN symbol.

This program can be developed by the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) which is an open community that expands collaboration to the outside world, and serves as a forum for ASEAN to contribute to building solidarity, lasting unity among the nations and peoples of ASEAN, and towards a common identity. Through ASCC, which is a place of integration in the socio-culture sector for ASEAN member countries, opportunities are provided for all member countries to participate and help one another. Every country can build identity awareness with the same portion, not only limited to the ASEAN 6 (ASEAN member countries that are more advanced). The ASEAN 6 can provide support to 4 other countries to build awareness together of an ASEAN identity in and out of ASEAN (Trung Van, 2017).

Conclusion

ASEAN today is still making effort to build a common identity. To build an ASEAN identity, the youth, members of ASEAN citizens, have great potential to play a role in spreading awareness of the ASEAN as ASEAN. Moreover, because ASEAN is formed by a variety of diversity, thus collaboration, unity and togetherness are the keys of ASEAN. ASEAN youth collaboration has great potential in building an ASEAN identity, develop awareness for the ASEAN community and bring its identity out of ASEAN and proudly before the rest of the world.

REFERENCES

ASEAN. 2018. About ASEAN. ASEAN Secretariat

ASEAN. 2018. ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) Blueprint 2025. ASEAN Secretariat

Bobby, Disha. 2016. The youth of today is the future of tomorrow. Al Nisr Publishing LLC. www.gulfnews.com/your-say/your-view/the-youth-of-today-is-the-future-of-tomorrow-1.1698078 accessed in October 2018.

Heaven, Cara and Tubridy, Matthew. 2008. Global Youth Culture and Youth Identity. Highly Affected, Rarely Considered, pp. 149-160.

Kit, Leong Wai dan Spykerman, Kimberly. 2016. Could ASEAN form a common identity?. Medacorp. www.channelnewsasia.com/news/ singapore/could-asean-form-a-common-identity-8183680 accessed in October 2018.

Noor, Farish A. 2017. ASEAN Identity, now and into the future: the interaction across borders in Southeast Asia. Heinrich Boell Foundation. www.boell. de/en/2017/08/02/asean-identity-now-and-future-interaction-across-borders-southeast-asia accessed in October 2018.

Statista. 2018. Total population of the ASEAN countries from 2008 to 2018 (in milllion inhabitants). Statista. www.statista.com/statistics/796222/total-population-of-the-asean-countries/ accessed in October 2018.

Trung Van, Hieu. 2017. The Challenges of ASEAN-50 About Unity in Diversity. SSRN Electronic Journal.

UNESCO. 2002. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Paris. UNESCO 1:7-59.

Ver,      Issabella.       2017.       On      the       way     to       an       ASEAN      Identity.      Asia       Society.

www.asiasociety.org/philippines/way-asean-identity accessed in October 2018.

VOV   (Voice of Vietnam). 2015. “Unity in diversity creates ASEAN identity. https://english.vov.vn/world/unity-in-diversity-creates-asean-identity-309101.vov accessed in November 2018.

Written by Muhammad Rasyid Ridho, a Graduate Student of International Relations Universitas Gadjah Mada.

ABSTRACT

The newest ASEAN Leaders’ Vision encompasses e-commerce as its underlined issue. As its relevancy is in line with the ascendancy of Industrial Revolution 4.0, it has potential as a new track of regional integration. It is inferred that ASEAN not only tries to capture the phenomenon from below, but also manages e-commerce as a significant issue by promulgating the possibility of having newer framework of it. State still hold prominent position in facing this issue. However, it is not free from any obstacles to achieved digital-based integration. The digital divide and the differences of regulation between member states are the significant problem. ASEAN still need the conventional economic development in order to utilize e-commerce as a new mode of business or a tool of integration. An elaborate and detailed regulation needed in order to harmonize regional e-commerce and to involve more local business players –specifically SME–.

Introduction

Not so recent in April 2018, a statement and communiqué released as the head states of Associations of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN countries convened the meetings, which is called “ASEAN Leaders’ Vision for a Resilient and Innovative ASEAN.” There are too many things pointed out, one of those is e-commerce. It is said that ASEAN needs to establish a special agreement on it to enhance greater digital connectivity, besides provides the freer movement goods and services.

Many experts are the staunch proponent of mainstream view of ASEAN top-down approach how integration works in ASEAN. State centrality poses as its core. Yet, there is a possibility that digital economy aspect manifested in form of e-commerce as a new trend of integration. It is a fact that e-commerce was not pioneered by the state; instead the private actors made it exist in the first place. In relation with it, the discussion below tries to dig more about the prospects of this innovative track of integration.

E-Commerce Short Overview in ASEAN

Amazon, the first company specialized in e-commerce in the world, was started operating in the early 1990s until the appearance of eBay. Amazon is not only limiting itself on selling books, but also spread its field into several products, such as clothes, electronics, movies, and so on. The existence of internet at that time started to change the mode of how goods and services delivered from producer to consumer. As its boom in the 1990s and early 200s, its recent appearance already made a new turbulence which marked by the dot-com bubble from April 1997 to June 2003.

In ASEAN, e-commerce is considered one of economic sector that just emerged. It is still unknown when the exact time this mode of economy penetrate ASEAN. Its presence approximately existed at late 1990s –it is roughly indicated when e-ASEAN Task Force and its Framework in 1999 promulgated, which will be discussed later–.

Nowadays, e-commerce thrives in ASEAN, especially in several countries, such as Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. It needs to be underlined the e-commerce enterprises operating in ASEAN are mostly dominated by Singaporean (Zalora, Shopee, Carousell) or Chinese (Lazada under Alibaba Group) enterprises.

The attractiveness of ASEAN online market is marked by the latest move by Alibaba, that launched its initial public offering and spent $250 million to gain 10.35% share in Singapore Post. Still, there are several domestic e-commerce companies at the respective countries (Tokopedia, Bukalapak, Homepro, and CDR King) which have decent competitiveness. However, e-commerce reality in ASEAN is not that huge, which constitutes a little portion of total retail in every member state, except Singapore.

Evolution of e-commerce% of total retail in selected countries

ASEAN Response

ASEAN established two types of initiative, such as e-ASEAN Task Force and e-ASEAN Framework Agreement. The task force is comprised by government and private actors in order to create ASEAN as an e-space (electronic space). Several aspects are became concern, such as physical, legal, logistical, social and economic infrastructure. For the latter, the framework defines the information and communication technology (ICT). It is not only providing the simple imperative to liberalize the ICT products, services, and investments, but also harmonizing regional tariff and arranging Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). Nine years after e-ASEAN initiatives establishment, ASEAN included e-commerce in its element on ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint.

In 2010, ASEAN launched the ASEAN e-Commerce Database as the compilation of the ASEAN countries’ netizen activities and the most active website performing e-commerce in this region. The content is mostly the result of the research on ASEAN netizen behavioural preference when surfing in internet and how they conduct transactions.

Does It Pose as Innovative Integration Catalyst or Not?

The process of integration in digital area –especially e-commerce– is executed by business, but the member states of ASEAN try to take control the process by promulgating the former agreements and future one. In addition, regions nowadays put e-commerce not as a substitute for the conventional economy activities. Dot-com bubble burst at 1997-2003 serves as warning for these regions, not excluding ASEAN. The fact ASEAN are not dismissing this issue but at the same time not putting this into the most priority agenda proves Coppock and Maclay premise.

Nonetheless, the integration and interconnectivity will be concentrated into ASEAN 5 + Vietnam since they are the major economic power in ASEAN. It is estimated these country will reach approximately 483 million internet users by 2020.

Internet Users in ASEAN

An essential information that can be inferred is digital divide exists. Many attempts are done by ASEAN to tackle this problem with IAI Work Plan III and the past tools. However, it is the fact that the result cannot be seen in several years. To spread e-commerce as vital component in digital integration, recipient countries and local business in the least developing countries in ASEAN, need infrastructure, access to e-commerce, language skill, and higher welfare to reap the technological advantage. Digital integration at the same time adds the new dichotomy in ASEAN, either they are fully integrated (ASEAN 5 + Vietnam and Brunei) or the partially or least integrated (CLM).

Logistic in the ASEAN related with e-commerce still poses as an essential challenge problems in ASEAN countries. With exception of Singapore and Malaysia, the delivery cost of cross-border transaction is still prevalent. E-commerce vendors find it hard to offer cheaper price to consumer. In accordance of the payment, most citizens in ASEAN are still unfamiliar with the digital based. There are less than 2% of consumers in Philippines and Vietnam who use credit cards. ATM/bank transfer is the most preferable payment method in Philippines and Indonesia. Cash is still persistent in Thailand, while Singapore has the high rate of credit payment usage. 73% of this region population is still unbanked.

The cross-border transcending nature of e-commerce presents a new challenge for the digital integration notion. A widely known assumption is when a region is not large enough to support economic actors to have confidence in internal market/region, then they will turn onto international negotiation. The condition will be worsen in the form of reduced regional competitiveness, if the region have no intention harmonize with the global area. ASEAN people will tend to conduct extra-ASEAN transaction rather than intra-ASEAN one if this scenario happens.

Even ASEAN already showed us their responsive action, yet it still faces internal problem. The absence of a binding agreement on e-commerce in regional level and the differences in national legislation on areas that affect e-commerce directly, for example privacy and consumer protection laws, is still prevalent. The issue develops, but the method that ASEAN and its constituting countries utilize does not change. The relevancy of ASEAN way, which put emphasis on national sovereignty, is still on effect and at some point hampering further integration.

At least, we agree that the presence e-commerce as pushing factor stimulates the development on least-developing area in ASEAN in order to be integrated in the digital framework. It cannot be denied that e-commerce gives the local actors chance to interrelate themselves and capture market potential in regional market easier than the conventional way.

Epilogue

After reconsidering the notion of digital integration, it arrives into different new inference. Digital integration via e-commerce is suitable to be a partial integrative factor, due to the existence of digital divide in ASEAN. The approach of ASEAN addressing this issue is by capturing the phenomenon from below (issue ascendancy through bottom-up process), then taking over the regulation formulation (issue management by top-down approach). So we cannot see this process in a dichotomous point of view, while it is combining both two processes.

ASEAN elites are going to devise newer agreement on e-commerce. Problems and challenges has already presented in previous part. As consideration, ASEAN may take lesson from its predecessor in its western counterpart, the European Union (EU). It invents The Digital Single Market Strategy as device to assist small-medium enterprises (SME). SMEs number in ASEAN are quite high, around 88%-99.9% and they employ 52%-97,2% people. ASEAN leaders shall adopt it with adjustment in order to share the prosperity cake with ASEAN people and at the same time intensely integrate ASEAN.