ASEAN研究におけるコンストラクティヴィズム的理解の再検討

「ASEAN Way」概念の出自から

抄録

Since its founding in 1967, none of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states have waged war against each other. Of late, scholars influenced by constructivist ideas have offered a social basis for analyzing the long peace among the members of ASEAN and more and more scholars have now turned to constructivism. Constructivists argue that through a traditional method which centers around norms such as non-interference and consensus-building, ASEAN members have gradually developed a collective identity that is critical to the emergence of a security community. These norms are usually lumped together under the heading “ASEAN Way.” According to constructivists, the “ASEAN Way” has been at the core of ASEAN regionalism as a symbol of solidarity.
But basic questions remain to be addressed. When and how did the term “ASEAN Way” emerge? The origin of the concept has been ignored in constructivist accounts of ASEAN. This leads to the central question of this article: Why did ASEAN members begin to use the term “ASEAN Way?” What was the necessity to use the term at that time?
The initial construction and definition of the term “ASEAN Way” was tied to legitimizing ASEAN's diplomatic practice vis-à-vis Myanmar's military government in the early 1990s. Despite heavy pressure from Western powers to impose sanctions, ASEAN leaders adhered to a strict respect for non-interference in members' internal affairs. ASEAN argued that the “ASEAN Way” presented the best means to support constructive political change in Myanmar.
In the late 1990s, expansion of membership to include Myanmar posed an intramural challenge to the principle of non-interference. Receiving support from the Philippines, Thailand's foreign minister, Surin Pitsuwan proposed the concept of “flexible engagement” to move beyond ASEAN's long-standing code of conduct. This proposal was a result of disaffection with ASEAN's policy towards the Myanmar junta. But the proposal for flexible engagement met with hostility from ASEAN states. Authoritarian members argued that flexible engagement challenged the “ASEAN Way” and weakened ASEAN solidarity. They used the term to delegitimate Surin's proposal.
The new term “ASEAN Way” was consciously created and evolved over time, focusing first on a strong commitment to sovereign rights. Constructivists view the “ASEAN Way” as the normative consensus that symbolizes ASEAN's values. But the term emerged and was used frequently in 1990s because ASEAN's traditional method was had fluctuated.