Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Myth of ASEAN Centrality?

The Myth of ASEAN Centrality? “ASEAN centrality” has become a prominent and perhaps fixed notion in the vocabulary of Southeast Asia’s and Asia’s international relations. But its origin is obscure and meaning unclear.1 And there are misconceptions or myths about ASEAN centrality that need to be understood and clarified. First, contrary to what many observers may think, ASEAN centrality is not an entirely novel or distinctive term. Rather it is related to a number of similar concepts: ASEAN as the “leader”, the “driver”, the “architect”, the “institutional hub”, the “vanguard”, the “nucleus”, and the “fulcrum” of regional processes and institutional designs in the Asia-Pacific region. A second popular misconception about ASEAN centrality is that it is about ASEAN itself. More accurately, it is really about the larger dynamics of regionalism and regional architecture in the Asia Pacific and even beyond. A third myth about ASEAN centrality is that it is the exclusive handiwork of ASEAN members — it is not. Herman Kraft, a Filipino scholar, speaks of a “significant shift in the evolution” of ASEAN “from an association dedicated to keeping the Southeast Asian region free from being enmeshed in great power rivalries to one which accepted its ‘centrality’ in a wide East http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

The Myth of ASEAN Centrality?


“ASEAN centrality” has become a prominent and perhaps fixed notion in the vocabulary of Southeast Asia’s and Asia’s international relations. But its origin is obscure and meaning unclear.1 And there are misconceptions or myths about ASEAN centrality that need to be understood and clarified. First, contrary to what many observers may think, ASEAN centrality is not an entirely novel or distinctive term. Rather it is related to a number of similar concepts: ASEAN as the “leader”, the “driver”, the “architect”, the “institutional hub”, the “vanguard”, the “nucleus”, and the “fulcrum” of regional processes and institutional designs in the Asia-Pacific region. A second popular misconception about ASEAN centrality is that it is about ASEAN itself. More accurately, it is really about the larger dynamics of regionalism and regional architecture in the Asia Pacific and even beyond. A third myth about ASEAN centrality is that it is the exclusive handiwork of ASEAN members — it is not. Herman Kraft, a Filipino scholar, speaks of a “significant shift in the evolution” of ASEAN “from an association dedicated to keeping the Southeast Asian region free from being enmeshed in great power rivalries to one which accepted its ‘centrality’ in a wide East Asian and Asia-Pacific regionalism, a process that would entail accepting involvement of and engaging the major powers in the context of the region”.2 Well put, but the very notion that ASEAN “accepted” its centrality implies that it did not necessarily...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/institute-of-southeast-asian-studies/the-myth-of-asean-centrality-V9MzyeHTRX
Publisher
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
Copyright
Copyright © The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
ISSN
1793-284X
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

“ASEAN centrality” has become a prominent and perhaps fixed notion in the vocabulary of Southeast Asia’s and Asia’s international relations. But its origin is obscure and meaning unclear.1 And there are misconceptions or myths about ASEAN centrality that need to be understood and clarified. First, contrary to what many observers may think, ASEAN centrality is not an entirely novel or distinctive term. Rather it is related to a number of similar concepts: ASEAN as the “leader”, the “driver”, the “architect”, the “institutional hub”, the “vanguard”, the “nucleus”, and the “fulcrum” of regional processes and institutional designs in the Asia-Pacific region. A second popular misconception about ASEAN centrality is that it is about ASEAN itself. More accurately, it is really about the larger dynamics of regionalism and regional architecture in the Asia Pacific and even beyond. A third myth about ASEAN centrality is that it is the exclusive handiwork of ASEAN members — it is not. Herman Kraft, a Filipino scholar, speaks of a “significant shift in the evolution” of ASEAN “from an association dedicated to keeping the Southeast Asian region free from being enmeshed in great power rivalries to one which accepted its ‘centrality’ in a wide East

Journal

Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic AffairsInstitute of Southeast Asian Studies

Published: Aug 23, 2017

There are no references for this article.