ASEAN in the Global Power Structure

A study of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) provides an excellent window into the interrelationships between the United States (U.S.), Japan, and the ASEANÆs member countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. As the history of the organization unfolds, the complex interplay of political ideologies and hidden national agendas reveals that the U.S. and Japan had a substantially different purpose for their involvement in ASEAN than it at first appeared. ASEAN was superficially intended to be an organization that upholds Asian regionalism and reduces dependence on foreign powers and markets, but instead it has been used as a pawn in neoliberal globalization to expand JapanÆs industrialization and to serve as a strategic hedge against communist expansion for the hegemon, the U.S.

When ASEAN was first formed, the ASEAN member nations intended it to draw them together into a unified regionalist entity that would reduce dependence on foreign powers, particularly economically:

While the goal of the ASEAN member countries has been acquiring an ôAsian identityö and achieving regional economic cooperation, the objective of the United States has been largely strategic in nature (Mahapatra 1990: 6).

That strategic objective of the U.S., hidden from view, was to halt the spread of Communism. The U.S.Æs discreet involvement meant that ôASEAN is not purely

. . .
tions about the benefits of regionalisation and free trade cannot be relied upon as facts. An actual examination of ASEANÆs trade statistics reveals that little benefit has been realized for the ASEAN countriesÆ economies from the establishment of ASEAN and its purported regionalisation initiatives. However, as Plummer further explains, ASEANÆs regionalisation does benefit someoneùthe U.S.: Interestingly, the corresponding shares for 1970 were 21 percent and 6 percent, respectively. Thus, while the total value of ASEAN exports increased rapidly from US$6 billion in 1970 to US$106 billion in 1988, the share going to markets within the region declined (Plummer 1996: 6). In evaluating the U.S.Æs interest in ASEANÆs regionalisation, then we must consider the motives and perspectives of the U.S. in effecting and perpetuating that regionalisation. Section 2: Cooperation in the Age of Growth (1985-1996) The Plaza Accord The Plaza Accord of 1985 ôtriggered increased Japanese investment in ASEAN countriesö (Kullada 1999: 210). In this accord, the exchange rates of major currencies were adjusted to ôlevels that could match economic fundamentals of major industrial nations and to rectify unsustainable external imbalancesö (Miura 2005).
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Southeast Asian, Japan ASEAN, United ASEAN, Akrasanee Prasert, Communism USÆs, Soviet Union, Asian Asian, Plaza Accord, ASEAN Japan, Berger Beeson, asean countries, mahapatra 1990, asean nations, september 2005, internet accessed, accessed 8 september, 8 september, 8 september 2005, internet accessed 8, accessed 8, kullada 1999, flying geese, flying geese model, akrasanee prasert 2003, geese model,
Approximate Word count = 7293
Approximate Pages = 29 (250 words per page)

More Essays on ASEAN in the Global Power Structure