東南アジアにおける多国間主義-地域安全保障の観点から-

多国間主義の検証

抄録

Multilateralism in Southeast Asia has successfully worked for the last 35 years, whereas it is generally argued that in Asia or the Asia-Pacific region, in contrast to Europe, multilateralism in security cooperation in particular has not. The author describes the multilateralism in Southeast Asia as a “Showcase of Multilateralism, ” implying that it functions well in guise while the multilateral cooperation based on it has often failed in solving regional problems especially in urgent nature. Nevertheless, since the inception of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in August 1967, it has practiced their multilateral cooperation in various fields and provided the region with benign inter-state relations and thus the environment in which each member country could concentrate on its own economic development and national integration. Until early 1990s, ASEAN was basically able to apply to every member country rules set on shared indivisible values in nondiscriminatory manners, and provide them with rights, obligations and interests almost equally.
In the process of the ASEAN's development, however, with its own organizational expansion and the broader regionalization with its extra-regional partners, its multilateralism which has often been referred to as the ‘ASEAN way’ now met some significant challenges. Especially with its establishment of a multilateral framework for security dialogue, namely the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ‘ASEAN way’ is being questioned and needs to persuade the extra-regional participants in particular that it can also provide them with its rights to participate, interests, and achievements equally. Reality shows, on the contrary, the ARF is still an ASEAN's forum and it serves ASEAN's security in the first place. For its part ASEAN recognizes that unless it retains its own relevancy and unless it can enjoy support and endorsement from the extra-regional partners, especially the big powers, the broader regional forum does not work as it was expected. While there is a general consensus that it was only the ASEAN's idea and initiative that enabled this multilateral framework for security talks to come into being in this region, there are criticisms and complaints about how it should be managed and made more useful.
After the economic and even political crises took place in East Asia in the late 1990s, the multilateralism in Southeast Asia has shown its centrifugal tendencies, if not irrelevancy. The author summarized those tendencies as: (1) bipolarizations between the older member countries and the newcomers, between generations, and between state and people or civil societies, (2) the inward-looking or individual policies of the member countries after the economic crisis, shown quite obviously in their different responses to the International Monetary Fund, (3) possibility of being integrated into a larger framework such as East Asia, also apparent after the crisis, (4) sub-regionalization under the current framework as was shown in the conclusion of an anti-terrorism agreement by four ASEAN countries in response to the aftermath of the September 11 incident. Having mentioned all those tendencies, the author still concludes that multilateralism as a modus operandi of managing relations between countries in Southeast Asia is still valid and effective, considering that any unilateralism based on a narrow-minded nationalism, or bilateralism to be trapped by sensitive issues are likely to disturb relatively stable and benign regional environment. In the near future, however, the wishes and aspirations for peace and prosperity of the people, as well as those of the states, should become the basis for their shared indivisible values in this region.