mic system that was dominated by the United States. These countries were dependent, for their survival as well as prosperity, on foreign markets, loans and investmentsö (Mahapatra 1990: 27).
As a result of this drawing together, it was hoped that regional unity would naturally result and that economic integration within the region would be easier to facilitate. One of the fundamental purposes of ASEAN, thenùat least on the surfaceùwas to accelerate the economic growth, social progress, and cultural development in the region (Mahapatra 1990: 19). Furthermore, ASEANÆs founders hoped to promote regional peace and stability in the region by encouraging a ôrespect for justice and rule of lawö (Mahapatra 1990: 19, 26). Less obvious to the outside observer but certainly part of the driving force behind the development of ASEAN was the desire to solve Asian problems in an Asian way rather than by imitating Western solutions (Mahapatra 1990: 6).
The U.S., as a non-Asian country, was neither a member of ASEAN nor overtly involved in its development. However, it played a strong role behind the scenes, providing support and ôdiscreet guidance,ö prompting the comment that ôWashington almost acted like a midwife in the birth of ASEANö (Mahapatra 1990: 6).
As the hegemon, the U.S. had the predominant influence over the third world nations comprising ASEAN, so ASEAN employed its guidance, apparently without questioning its motives. The U.S. had objectives for ASEAN that went beyond a selfless desire to see the region prosper, however. One of these was the use of ASEAN as a containment strategy against the expansion of Communism; the U.S. did not want to see ôMoscow-oriented regimesö in Asia (Mahapatra 1990: 49), nor did it want Southeast Asia to become ôan unfriendly and militantö power (Mahapatra 1990: 46). It feared both Communism itself and the effects of Communism on the world economy, given the fact that Southe...