ASEAN

ESTABLISHMENT
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8 August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the
signing of the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia,
Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997,
and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten Member States of ASEAN.
AIMS AND PURPOSES
As set out in the ASEAN Declaration, the aims and purposes of ASEAN are:
1. To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint
endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and
peaceful community of Southeast Asian Nations;
2. To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship
among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter;
3. To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in the economic, social,
cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields;
4. To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in the educational, professional,
technical and administrative spheres;
5. To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilisation of their agriculture and industries, the expansion of their
trade, including the study of the problems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their
transportation and communications facilities and the raising of the living standards of their peoples;
6. To promote Southeast Asian studies; and
7. To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional organisations with similar
aims and purposes, and explore all avenues for even closer cooperation among themselves.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
In their relations with one another, the ASEAN Member States have adopted the following fundamental principles, as
contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) of 1976:
1. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations;
2. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion;
3. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
4. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;
5. Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
6. Effective cooperation among themselves.
ASEAN COMMUNITY
The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision
of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded
together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies.
At the 9th ASEAN Summit in 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community shall be established.
At the 12th ASEAN Summit in January 2007, the Leaders affirmed their strong commitment to accelerate the
establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015 and signed the Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the
Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015.
The ASEAN Community is comprised of three pillars, namely the ASEAN Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic
Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. Each pillar has its own Blueprint, and, together with the Initiative for
ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work Plan Phase II (2009-2015), they form the Roadmap for an
ASEAN Community 2009-2015.

Please click here for the ASEAN Political-Security Community Video.

Please click here for the ASEAN Economic Community Video.
Please click here for ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Video.
Please click here for ASEAN History and Purposes.

ASEAN CHARTER
The ASEAN Charter serves as a firm foundation in achieving the ASEAN Community by providing legal status and
institutional framework for ASEAN. It also codifies ASEAN norms, rules and values; sets clear targets for ASEAN; and
presents accountability and compliance.
The ASEAN Charter entered into force on 15 December 2008. A gathering of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers was held at
the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta to mark this very historic occasion for ASEAN.
With the entry into force of the ASEAN Charter, ASEAN will henceforth operate under a new legal framework and
establish a number of new organs to boost its community-building process.
In effect, the ASEAN Charter has become a legally binding agreement among the 10 ASEAN Member States.
Find out more about the ASEAN Charter here.
History
The Founding of ASEAN
On 8 August 1967, five leaders the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand
sat down together in the main hall of the Department of Foreign Affairs building in Bangkok, Thailand and signed a
document. By virtue of that document, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was born. The five Foreign
Ministers who signed it Adam Malik of Indonesia, Narciso R. Ramos of the Philippines, Tun Abdul Razak of Malaysia, S.
Rajaratnam of Singapore, and Thanat Khoman of Thailand would subsequently be hailed as the Founding Fathers of
probably the most successful inter-governmental organization in the developing world today. And the document that they
signed would be known as the ASEAN Declaration.
It was a short, simply-worded document containing just five articles. It declared the establishment of an Association for
Regional Cooperation among the Countries of Southeast Asia to be known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) and spelled out the aims and purposes of that Association. These aims and purposes were about cooperation in
the economic, social, cultural, technical, educational and other fields, and in the promotion of regional peace and stability
through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter. It
stipulated that the Association would be open for participation by all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to its
aims, principles and purposes. It proclaimed ASEAN as representing the collective will of the nations of Southeast Asia to
bind themselves together in friendship and cooperation and, through joint efforts and sacrifices, secure for their peoples
and for posterity the blessings of peace, freedom and prosperity.
It was while Thailand was brokering reconciliation among Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia over certain disputes
that it dawned on the four countries that the moment for regional cooperation had come or the future of the region would
remain uncertain. Recalls one of the two surviving protagonists of that historic process, Thanat Khoman of Thailand: At
the banquet marking the reconciliation between the three disputants, I broached the idea of forming another organization
for regional cooperation with Adam Malik. Malik agreed without hesitation but asked for time to talk with his government
and also to normalize relations with Malaysia now that the confrontation was over. Meanwhile, the Thai Foreign Office
prepared a draft charter of the new institution. Within a few months, everything was ready. I therefore invited the two
former members of the Association for Southeast Asia (ASA), Malaysia and the Philippines, and Indonesia, a key member,
to a meeting in Bangkok. In addition, Singapore sent S. Rajaratnam, then Foreign Minister, to see me about joining the
new set-up. Although the new organization was planned to comprise only the ASA members plus Indonesia, Singapores
request was favorably considered.
And so in early August 1967, the five Foreign Ministers spent four days in the relative isolation of a beach resort in Bang
Saen, a coastal town less than a hundred kilometers southeast of Bangkok. There they negotiated over that document in
a decidedly informal manner which they would later delight in describing as sports-shirt diplomacy. Yet it was by no
means an easy process: each man brought into the deliberations a historical and political perspective that had no
resemblance to that of any of the others. But with goodwill and good humor, as often as they huddled at the negotiating
table, they finessed their way through their differences as they lined up their shots on the golf course and traded
wisecracks on one anothers game, a style of deliberation which would eventually become the ASEAN ministerial tradition.
Now, with the rigors of negotiations and the informalities of Bang Saen behind them, with their signatures neatly attached
to the ASEAN Declaration, also known as the Bangkok Declaration, it was time for some formalities. The first to speak
was the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Narciso Ramos, a one-time journalist and long-time legislator who had
given up a chance to be Speaker of the Philippine Congress to serve as one of his countrys first diplomats. He was then
66 years old and his only son, the future President Fidel V. Ramos, was serving with the Philippine Civic Action Group in
embattled Vietnam. He recalled the tediousness of the negotiations that preceded the signing of the Declaration that truly
taxed the goodwill, the imagination, the patience and understanding of the five participating Ministers. That ASEAN was
established at all in spite of these difficulties, he said, meant that its foundations had been solidly laid. And he impressed it
on the audience of diplomats, officials and media people who had witnessed the signing ceremony that a great sense of
urgency had prompted the Ministers to go through all that trouble. He spoke darkly of the forces that were arrayed against
the survival of the countries of Southeast Asia in those uncertain and critical times.
The fragmented economies of Southeast Asia, he said, (with) each country pursuing its own limited objectives and
dissipating its meager resources in the overlapping or even conflicting endeavors of sister states carry the seeds of

weakness in their incapacity for growth and their self-perpetuating dependence on the advanced, industrial nations.
ASEAN, therefore, could marshal the still untapped potentials of this rich region through more substantial united action.
When it was his turn to speak, Adam Malik, Presidium Minister for Political Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Indonesia, recalled that about a year before, in Bangkok, at the conclusion of the peace talks between Indonesia and
Malaysia, he had explored the idea of an organization such as ASEAN with his Malaysian and Thai counterparts. One of
the angry young men in his countrys struggle for independence two decades earlier, Adam Malik was then 50 years old
and one of a Presidium of five led by then General Soeharto that was steering Indonesia from the verge of economic and
political chaos. He was the Presidiums point man in Indonesias efforts to mend fences with its neighbors in the wake of
an unfortunate policy of confrontation. During the past year, he said, the Ministers had all worked together toward the
realization of the ASEAN idea, making haste slowly, in order to build a new association for regional cooperation.
Adam Malik went on to describe Indonesias vision of a Southeast Asia developing into a region which can stand on its
own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region. Such a vision, he
stressed, was not wishful thinking, if the countries of the region effectively cooperated with each other, considering their
combined natural resources and manpower. He referred to differences of outlook among the member countries, but those
differences, he said, would be overcome through a maximum of goodwill and understanding, faith and realism. Hard work,
patience and perseverance, he added, would also be necessary.
The countries of Southeast Asia should also be willing to take responsibility for whatever happens to them, according to
Tun Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, who spoke next. In his speech, he conjured a vision of an
ASEAN that would include all the countries of Southeast Asia. Tun Abdul Razak was then concurrently his countrys
Minister of Defence and Minister of National Development. It was a time when national survival was the overriding thrust
of Malaysias relations with other nations and so as Minister of Defence, he was in charge of his countrys foreign affairs.
He stressed that the countries of the region should recognize that unless they assumed their common responsibility to
shape their own destiny and to prevent external intervention and interference, Southeast Asia would remain fraught with
danger and tension. And unless they took decisive and collective action to prevent the eruption of intra-regional conflicts,
the nations of Southeast Asia would remain susceptible to manipulation, one against another.
We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia, Tun Abdul Razak said, must get together and form by ourselves a new
perspective and a new framework for our region. It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep
awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together and
unless we prove by deeds that we belong to a family of Southeast Asian nations bound together by ties of friendship and
goodwill and imbued with our own ideals and aspirations and determined to shape our own destiny. He added that, with
the establishment of ASEAN, we have taken a firm and a bold step on that road.
For his part, S. Rajaratnam, a former Minister of Culture of multi-cultural Singapore who, at that time, served as its first
Foreign Minister, noted that two decades of nationalist fervor had not fulfilled the expectations of the people of Southeast
Asia for better living standards. If ASEAN would succeed, he said, then its members would have to marry national thinking
with regional thinking.
We must now think at two levels, Rajaratnam said. We must think not only of our national interests but posit them
against regional interests: that is a new way of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and
sometimes they can conflict. Secondly, we must also accept the fact, if we are really serious about it, that regional
existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these
painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.
S. Rajaratnam expressed the fear, however, that ASEAN would be misunderstood. We are not against anything, he said,
not against anybody. And here he used a term that would have an ominous ring even today: balkanization. In Southeast
Asia, as in Europe and any part of the world, he said, outside powers had a vested interest in the balkanization of the
region. We want to ensure, he said, a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast Asia. And those countries who
are interested, genuinely interested, in the stability of Southeast Asia, the prosperity of Southeast Asia, and better
economic and social conditions, will welcome small countries getting together to pool their collective resources and their
collective wisdom to contribute to the peace of the world.
The goal of ASEAN, then, is to create, not to destroy. This, the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Thanat Khoman, stressed
when it was his turn to speak. At a time when the Vietnam conflict was raging and American forces seemed forever
entrenched in Indochina, he had foreseen their eventual withdrawal from the area and had accordingly applied himself to
adjusting Thailands foreign policy to a reality that would only become apparent more than half a decade later. He must
have had that in mind when, on that occasion, he said that the countries of Southeast Asia had no choice but to adjust to
the exigencies of the time, to move toward closer cooperation and even integration. Elaborating on ASEAN objectives, he
spoke of building a new society that will be responsive to the needs of our time and efficiently equipped to bring about, for
the enjoyment and the material as well as spiritual advancement of our peoples, conditions of stability and progress.
Particularly what millions of men and women in our part of the world want is to erase the old and obsolete concept of
domination and subjection of the past and replace it with the new spirit of give and take, of equality and partnership. More
than anything else, they want to be master of their own house and to enjoy the inherent right to decide their own destiny

While the nations of Southeast Asia prevent attempts to deprive them of their freedom and sovereignty, he said, they must
first free themselves from the material impediments of ignorance, disease and hunger. Each of these nations cannot
accomplish that alone, but by joining together and cooperating with those who have the same aspirations, these
objectives become easier to attain. Then Thanat Khoman concluded: What we have decided today is only a small
beginning of what we hope will be a long and continuous sequence of accomplishments of which we ourselves, those who
will join us later and the generations to come, can be proud. Let it be for Southeast Asia, a potentially rich region, rich in
history, in spiritual as well as material resources and indeed for the whole ancient continent of Asia, the light of happiness
and well-being that will shine over the uncounted millions of our struggling peoples.
The Foreign Minister of Thailand closed the inaugural session of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations by presenting
each of his colleagues with a memento. Inscribed on the memento presented to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was

the citation, In recognition of services rendered by His Excellency Adam Malik to the ASEAN organization, the name of
which was suggested by him.
And that was how ASEAN was conceived, given a name, and born. It had been barely 14 months since Thanat Khoman
brought up the ASEAN idea in his conversations with his Malaysian and Indonesian colleagues. In about three more
weeks, Indonesia would fully restore diplomatic relations with Malaysia, and soon after that with Singapore. That was by
no means the end to intra-ASEAN disputes, for soon the Philippines and Malaysia would have a falling out on the issue of
sovereignty over Sabah. Many disputes between ASEAN countries persist to this day. But all Member Countries are
deeply committed to resolving their differences through peaceful means and in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Every
dispute would have its proper season but it would not be allowed to get in the way of the task at hand. And at that time,
the essential task was to lay the framework of regional dialogue and cooperation.
The two-page Bangkok Declaration not only contains the rationale for the establishment of ASEAN and its specific
objectives. It represents the organizations modus operandi of building on small steps, voluntary, and informal
arrangements towards more binding and institutionalized agreements. All the founding member states and the newer
members have stood fast to the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. Over the years, ASEAN has progressively entered into
several formal and legally-binding instruments, such as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and
the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.
Against the backdrop of conflict in the then Indochina, the Founding Fathers had the foresight of building a community of
and for all Southeast Asian states. Thus the Bangkok Declaration promulgated that the Association is open for
participation to all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes.
ASEANs inclusive outlook has paved the way for community-building not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the broader
Asia Pacific region where several other inter-governmental organizations now co-exist.
The original ASEAN logo presented five brown sheaves of rice stalks, one for each founding member. Beneath the
sheaves is the legend ASEAN in blue. These are set on a field of yellow encircled by a blue border. Brown stands for
strength and stability, yellow for prosperity and blue for the spirit of cordiality in which ASEAN affairs are conducted. When
ASEAN celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1997, the sheaves on the logo had increased to ten representing all ten
countries of Southeast Asia and reflecting the colors of the flags of all of them. In a very real sense, ASEAN and
Southeast Asia would then be one and the same, just as the Founding Fathers had envisioned.
This article is based on the first chapter of ASEAN at 30, a publication of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in
commemoration of its 30th Anniversary on 8 August 1997, written by Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad.

ASEAN Motto
The motto of ASEAN is One Vision, One Identity, One Community.
ASEAN Flag

GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF THE ASEAN FLAG

1. The ASEAN Flag is a symbol of Member States unity and support for the principles and endeavours of ASEAN
and is a means to promote greater ASEAN awareness and solidarity.
2. The ASEAN Flag represents a stable, peaceful, united and dynamic ASEAN. The colours of the Flag blue, red,
white and yellow represent the main colours of the flags of all the ASEAN Member States.
3. The blue represents peace and stability. Red depicts courage and dynamism, white shows purity and yellow
symbolises prosperity.
4. The stalks of padi in the centre of the Emblem represent the dream of ASEANs Founding Fathers for an ASEAN
comprising all the countries in Southeast Asia, bound together in friendship and solidarity.
5. The circle represents the unity of ASEAN.

6. The ASEAN Flag is the reserved copyright of ASEAN.

7. The specifications of the ASEAN Flag are annexed.

A. Dignity of the ASEAN Flag

8. The ASEAN Flag shall be treated with respect and shall not be subjected to any indignity.
B. Use of the ASEAN Flag
B.1. Use of the ASEAN Flag by ASEAN Member States
9. ASEAN Member States shall use the ASEAN Flag in the manner specified under these guidelines that include the
following:
a. The ASEAN Flag shall be displayed at all ASEAN National Secretariats.
b. The ASEAN Flag shall be displayed on a permanent basis at Diplomatic and Consular Missions of
ASEAN Member States alongside the national flag. The ASEAN Flag shall be displayed by the ASEAN
Member States in third countries which are recognised by all ASEAN Member States.
c.

The ASEAN Flag shall be displayed alongside the national flag in the following manner:

d. The ASEAN Flag shall be displayed during ASEAN meetings, ASEAN Day Celebrations, ceremonies and
functions held in Member States.
e. The display of the ASEAN Flag shall be in accordance with national laws and regulations of the respective
countries and the provisions under these Guidelines.
B.2. Use of the ASEAN Flag by the ASEAN Secretariat
10. The ASEAN Secretariat shall use the ASEAN Flag in the manner specified under these guidelines that include the
following:
a. Display at the Secretariat buildings and residence of the Secretary-General;
b. During ASEAN meetings
c.

On the official vehicle of the Secretary-General of ASEAN during official functions; and

d. During ASEAN Day celebrations, official functions, ceremonies, exhibitions, gatherings or any other
occasions organised by the ASEAN Secretariat in its effort to promote the interest of ASEAN.
B.3. Use of the ASEAN Flag by ASEAN Committees in Third Countries
11. ASEAN Committees in Third Countries shall also display the ASEAN Flag during ASEAN Day celebrations, official
functions, ceremonies, exhibitions, gatherings or any other occasions in its effort to promote the interest of
ASEAN.
B.4. Use of the ASEAN Flag by ASEAN institutions
12. ASEAN institutions shall display the ASEAN Flag at their premises as well as during ASEAN meetings, ASEAN
Day celebrations, official functions, ceremonies, exhibitions, gatherings or any other occasions in its effort to
promote the interest of ASEAN.
B.5. Use of the ASEAN Flag by Countries, International Organisations and Entities Associated with ASEAN
13. Countries which have relations with ASEAN, International Organisations which work closely with ASEAN and
entities associated with ASEAN may display the ASEAN Flag in support of activities related to ASEAN.

B.6. Use of the ASEAN Flag in Mourning

14. Upon the passing of a Head of State or Government of a Member State, the ASEAN Flag will be flown at halfmast at the ASEAN Secretariat building and other ASEAN institutional buildings for an official mourning period.
The ASEAN Flag may also be flown at half-mast in special circumstances, including natural calamities in ASEAN
Member States, upon the approval of all ASEAN Member States.
15. Member States will decide if the ASEAN Flag should be flown at half-mast in their respective countries as well as
the period of mourning.
C. Position of ASEAN Flag in the Flag Arrangements for ASEAN Meetings
16. The ASEAN outdoor/venue and room flag shall be displayed together with the flags of ASEAN Member States in
alphabetical order, based on the names of Member States, starting from Brunei Darussalam on the extreme
left and with the ASEAN Flag always on the extreme right after the national flag of Viet Nam, in the following
manner:
Diagram 1: Outdoor Flags Diagram

17. When placed with the flag of a Dialogue Partner, the ASEAN Flag along with the flags of ASEAN Member States
shall
be
displayed
in
the
following
manner:
Diagram 2: Venue Flags (Outdoor/Indoor)

18. The ASEAN table flag shall be displayed at the left side of the name plaque of the ASEAN Secretariat, in the
following manner:

D. Disposal of Worn Flag

19. When the ASEAN Flag has become worn or torn or frayed, it shall not be displayed, and shall be properly
disposed of.
E. Approval of and Amendments to the Guidelines
20. The Guidelines shall be approved by the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC).
21. Any Member State may propose amendments to the Guidelines, which shall be submitted to the Committee of
Permanent Representatives (CPR) for its consideration and agreed upon by consensus. The agreed amendments
shall be submitted to the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC) for notation, and thereafter come into immediate
effect.
ANNEX
A. Specifications
1. The specifications of Pantone Colour for the colours of the ASEAN Flag are:
Background : Pantone 19-4053
TC/Pantone Blue 286
Outer Ring : Pantone 11-4202

TC/Plain White
Circular Area : Pantone 18-1655
TC/Pantone Red 032
Rice Stalks : Pantone 13-0758
TC/Pantone Process Yellow
B. Design of the ASEAN Flag
2. The ASEAN Flag comes in four versions, namely, the Table Flag, Room Flag, Car Flag, and Outdoor/ Venue Flag.
While the colour specifications are the same for all versions, the measurements and materials used differ.
B.1. Table Flag

Measurement and Material:

Size : 10 cm x 15 cm
Emblem Diameter : 6 cm
Material : Polyester Nylon
Process Technique : Screen Printing; Sewing
Finishing : Double stitch on sides
B.2. Room Flag

Measurement and Material:

Size : 100 cm x 150 cm
Emblem Diameter : 60 cm
Material : Polyester Nylon
Process Technique : Screen Printing; Sewing
Finishing : Double stitch on sides
B.3. Car Flag

Measurement and Material:

Size : 20 cm x 30 cm
Emblem Diameter : 12 cm
Material : Polyester Nylon

Process Technique : Screen Printing; Sewing

Finishing : Double stitch on sides
B.4. Outdoor/Venue Flag

Measurement and Material:

Size : 200 cm x 300 cm
Emblem Diameter : 120 cm
Material : Polyester Nylon
Process Technique : Screen Printing; Sewing
Finishing : Double stitch on sides
Note: The Guidelines were adopted at the 8th Meeting of the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC), Jakarta, 6 May 2011.

ASEAN Emblem
Guidelines on the Use of the ASEAN Emblem
1. The ASEAN Emblem shall be the official emblem of ASEAN.
2. The ASEAN Emblem represents a stable, peaceful, united and dynamic ASEAN. The colours of the Emblem
blue, red, white and yellow represent the main colours of the state crests of all the ASEAN Member States.
3. The blue represents peace and stability. Red depicts courage and dynamism, white shows purity and yellow
symbolises prosperity.
4. The stalks of padi in the centre of the Emblem represent the dream of ASEANs Founding Fathers for an ASEAN
comprising all the countries in Southeast Asia, bound together in friendship and solidarity.
5. The circle represents the unity of ASEAN.
6. The ASEAN Emblem is the reserved copyright of ASEAN.
A. Use of the ASEAN Emblem
7. The ASEAN Emblem shall be used in a manner that promotes ASEAN and its purposes and principles. It shall not
be used for political purposes or for activities that harm the dignity of ASEAN.
8. The ASEAN Emblem shall not be used for commercial purposes unless the entities concerned obtain official
approval through the procedures stipulated in Article A.4.
A.1. Use of the ASEAN Emblem by ASEAN Member States
9. ASEAN Member States are encouraged to use the ASEAN Emblem in official functions relating to ASEAN.
10. The ASEAN Emblem shall be placed to the right of the ASEAN Member States National Symbols, as seen by the
viewer.
A.2. Use of the ASEAN Emblem by the ASEAN Secretariat

11. The ASEAN Secretariat shall use the ASEAN Emblem in the manner considered appropriate by the SecretaryGeneral which may include the following:
a. Display at the Secretariat buildings and residence of the Secretary-General;
b. Use in its official correspondence as letterhead;
c.

Use as the official seal for the ASEAN Secretariat;

d. Use in its official publications, stationery and souvenirs;

e. Mark or engrave on properties belonging to the ASEAN Secretariat; and
f. Display at ASEAN official functions.
A.3. Use of the ASEAN Emblem by Entities Associated with ASEAN
12. Entities officially associated with ASEAN as in Annex 2 of the ASEAN Charter may use the ASEAN Emblem in
their official correspondences and meetings.
A.4. Use of the ASEAN Emblem by Other Entities
13. Other entities based in an ASEAN Member State shall submit their request for the use of the ASEAN Emblem to
the ASEAN National Secretariat concerned.
14. Other entities outside the ASEAN region shall submit their request for the use of the ASEAN Emblem to the
Community Relations Division of the ASEAN Secretariat:
Community
Relations
Division
The
ASEAN
Secretariat
70
A,
Jl.
Sisingamangaraja
Jakarta
12110
Indonesia
E-mail: public@asean.org
15. Requests for the use of the ASEAN Emblem shall be submitted in writing, and accompanied with the following
information:
o

organisational profile;

nature and purpose of the proposed activity;

duration of the use of the ASEAN Emblem; and

prototype of the proposed use of the ASEAN Emblem.

16. The ASEAN National Secretariats and the ASEAN Secretariat shall consider the requests accordingly. The
approval granted shall be exclusive to the proposed activity. Such approval shall not be extended to third parties.
17. Authorisation to use the ASEAN Emblem does not confer on those to whom it is granted any right of exclusive
use, nor does it allow them to appropriate the Emblem or any similar trademark or logo, either by registration or
any other means.
B. Reproduction of the ASEAN Emblem
18. The ASEAN Emblem shall be reproduced in accordance with the Specifications and Colours indicated in the
Annex.
C. Approval of and Amendments to the Guidelines
19. The Guidelines shall be approved by the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC).
20. Any Member State may propose amendments to the Guidelines, which shall be submitted to the Committee of
Permanent Representatives (CPR) for its consideration and agreed upon by consensus. The agreed amendments
shall be submitted to the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC) for notation, and thereafter come into immediate
effect.

ANNEX
Specifications and Colours
1. The specifications of Pantone Colour adopted for the colours of the ASEAN Emblem are:
Blue : Pantone 286
Red : Pantone Red 032
Yellow : Pantone Process Yellow
2. For four-colour printing process, the specifications of colours will be:
Blue : 100C 60 M 0Y 6K (100C 60M 0Y 10K)
Red : 0C 91M 87Y 0K (0C 90M 90Y 0K)
Yellow : 0C 0M 100Y 0K
3. Specifications in brackets are to be used when an arbitrary measurement of process colours is not possible.
4. In Pantone Process Colour Simulator, the specifications equal to:
Blue : Pantone 204-1
Red : Pantone 60-1
Yellow : Pantone 1-3
5. The font used for the word ASEAN in the Emblem is lower-case Helvetica in bold.
6. The Emblem shall appear either in the specified colours or in a singular colour of black, white, gold or silver. It can
be enlarged or shrunk in proportionate size as appropriate for its use and place of display.
Note:
The Guidelines were adopted at the 6th Meeting of the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC), Ha Noi, 8 April 2010.
ASEAN Day
8th August is observed as ASEAN Day.
ASEAN Anthem

Guidelines on the Use of the ASEAN Anthem

1. The ASEAN Anthem is an expression of ASEAN unity. It also strengthens the sense of ASEAN identity and
belonging among the peoples of the region.
2. The ASEAN Anthem is titled THE ASEAN WAY, with musical composition and lyrics as attached.
3. The ASEAN Anthem is under the copyright of ASEAN with the ASEAN Secretariat as the main body to oversee its
proper use.
A. Dignity of the ASEAN Anthem
4. The ASEAN Anthem shall be used in a proper and dignified manner. When the Anthem is played, the audience
shall rise.
5. The Anthem shall not be used in whole or in parts for commercial purposes or political propaganda.
B. Use of the ASEAN Anthem
6. The use of the ASEAN Anthem is encouraged at ASEAN formal meetings and related activities, including those
with ASEAN Dialogue Partners.
7. The ASEAN Anthem may be played to commemorate special occasions of ASEAN, such as the anniversary of
ASEAN, or in efforts to promote the interests of ASEAN.

10

8. ASEAN Member States are encouraged to translate the ASEAN Anthem into local languages as a way to promote
the Anthem and increase ASEAN awareness within their countries.
C. Inquiries on the Use of the ASEAN Anthem
9. Inquiries concerning the ASEAN Anthem should be addressed to:Public Outreach and Civil Society Division
The
ASEAN
Secretariat
70
A,
Jl.
Sisingamangaraja
Jakarta
12110
Indonesia
Email: public@asean.org
D. Approval of and Amendments to the Guidelines
10. The Guidelines shall be approved by the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC).
11. Any Member State may propose amendments to the Guidelines, which shall be submitted to the Committee of
Permanent Representatives (CPR) for its consideration and agreed upon by consensus. The agreed amendments
shall be submitted to the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC) for notation, and thereafter come into immediate
effect.
Note:
The Guidelines were adopted at the 6th Meeting of the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC), Ha Noi, 8 April 2010.
Audio, The ASEAN Way
The Asean Way / Original Version
By :
Mr.Kittikhun Sodprasert, Mr Sampow Triudom, Mrs.Payom Valaipatchra
Lyrics, The ASEAN Way
Raise our flag high, sky high
Embrace the pride in our heart
ASEAN we are bonded as one
Look-in out to the world.
For peace, our goal from the very start
And prosperity to last.
We dare to dream we care to share.
Together for ASEAN
we dare to dream,
we care to share for its the way of ASEAN.

ASEAN Name
Guidelines on the Use of the Name ASEAN
A. Scope and Application
1.The Name ASEAN refers to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
2.These Guidelines set out the procedure for the request and authorization for the use of the name ASEAN
3.These Guidelines shall apply to entities requesting to use the name ASEAN and shall not apply to the following:
3.1 ASEAN Organs under Chapter IV of the ASEAN Charter including their mechanisms, activities and
programmes;
3.2 ASEAN mechanism officially established by ASEAN Member States;
3.3 Entities belonging to or activities organized by the Governments of ASEAN Member States; and
3.4 Entities associated with ASEAN in accordance with Article 16 of the ASEAN Charter.
B. Protection
4.The name ASEAN is protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,
adopted in 1883 and revised in Stockholm in 1967.
C. Use of the Name ASEAN
5.The use of the name ASEAN aims to promote ASEAN and its purposes and principles as stipulated in the ASEAN
Charter. It shall not be used for political propaganda or for activities that harm the dignity and integrity of ASEAN, and
adversely affects ASEAN or ASEAN Member States.
6.The request for the use of the name ASEAN shall satisfy the following conditions:
6.1 The entity shall be indigenous to ASEAN;
6.2

The use of the name ASEAN shall be in support of ASEAN purposes and principles as well as for mutual
benefit in the context of attaining ASEAN Community 2015 and beyond and shall not have any negative effect
on such purposes and principles;
6.3 The name ASEAN shall not be brought into disrepute by its use.
C. Enquiries and Requests for the Use of the Name ASEAN

11

7.Any enquiry and/or request for the use of the name ASEAN shall be submitted in writing to the ASEAN Secretariat at
the following address:
Legal Services and Agreements Division
The ASEAN Secretariat
70A, Jl. Sisingamangaraja
Jakarta 12110
Indonesia
E-mail:
8.An entity requesting for the use of the name ASEAN will be required to complete the prescribed application form and
submit it together with supporting documents as specified in the form.

D. Authorisation and Revocation Process

9.Upon receiving an enquiry and/or request by an entity seeking to use the name ASEAN, the ASEAN Secretariat will
consider such enquiry and/or request within a reasonable time. Where necessary, the ASEAN Secretariat may, seek
further information and clarification from the requesting entity to ensure that the enquiry and/or request will be processed
appropriately.
10.In considering the request, the ASEAN Secretariat may, if necessary, consult with the Committee of Permanent
Representatives (CPR) and/or concerned ASEAN Sectoral Bodies.
11.Where the abovementioned conditions and requirements for the request are satisfied, the ASEAN Secretariat may
grant the authorization to use the name ASEAN. Such authorization shall be on a non-exclusive basis and may be
subject to any terms and conditions as may be determined by the ASEAN Secretariat on a case-by-case basis.
12.The authorization for the use of the name ASEAN cannot be extended or otherwise transferred to any third party.
13.The authorization to use the name ASEAN does not establish any form of relations or confer any status between
ASEAN and the entity to which the authorization has been granted. Such authorization shall not entitle the entity to act
on behalf of ASEAN, or to undertake any act to bind ASEAN or create a liability against ASEAN in any manner
whatsoever.
14.Any ASEAN Member State or the ASEAN Secretariat may suggest the revocation of the use of the name ASEAN.
The decision on the revocation shall be made by the ASEAN Secretariat in consultation with the CPR, taking into
consideration the provisions set forth in these Guidelines.
E. Amendments to the Guidelines
15. Any ASEAN Member State may propose amendments to these Guidelines, which shall be submitted to the CPR for its
consideration and agreed upon by consensus. The agreed amendments shall be submitted to the ASEAN Coordinating
Council (ACC) for notation, and thereafter come into immediate effect.
F. Final Clause
16. The CPR considered and agreed to these Guidelines at the 18/2013 CPR Meeting on 19 September 2013.
Note:
These Guidelines are amended in accordance with paragraph 10 of the Guidelines on the Use of the Name ASEAN
which were adopted at the 6th Meeting of the ASEAN Coordinating Council (ACC), Ha Noi, 8 April 2010. These Guidelines
were submitted to the ACC for notation on 26 September 2013.
ASEAN Member States

12

Brunei Darussalam

Head of State : His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Muizzaddin Waddaulah
Capital : Bandar Seri Begawan
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language(s) : Malay, English
Currency : B$ (Brunei Dollar)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade of Brunei Darussalam Website: www.mfa.gov.bn
Cambodia

Head of State : His Majesty King Norodom Sihamoni

Head of Government : Prime Minister Hun Sen
Capital : Phnom Penh
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language : Khmer
Currency : Riel
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Cooperation of Cambodia Website: www.mfaic.gov.kh

13

Indonesia

Head of State : President Joko Widodo

Capital : Jakarta
Language : Indonesian
Currency : Rupiah
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia Website: www.kemlu.go.id
Lao PDR

Head of State : President Bounnhang Vorachith

Head of Government : Prime Minister Thongloun Sisoulith
Capital : Vientiane
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language : Lao
Currency : Kip
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lao PDR Website: www.mofa.gov.la
Malaysia

Head of State : His Majesty The King Almutasimu Billahi Muhibbuddin Tuanku Al-Haj Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah ibni
Almarhum Sultan Badlishah
Head of Government : The Honourable Dato Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak

14

Capital : Kuala Lumpur

National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language(s) : Malay, English, Chinese, Tamil
Currency : Ringgit
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia Website: www.kln.gov.my
ASEAN-Malaysia National Secretariat Website: www.kln.gov.my/myasean
Myanmar

Head of State : President U Htin Kyaw

Capital : Nay Pyi Taw
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language : Myanmar
Currency : Kyat
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar Website: www.mofa.gov.mm
Philippines

Head of State : President Rodrigo Roa Duterte

Capital : Manila
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language(s) : Filipino, English, Spanish
Currency : Peso
Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines Website: www.dfa.gov.ph

15

Singapore

Head of State : President Tony Tan Keng Yam

Head of Government : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Capital : Singapore
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language(s) : English, Malay, Mandarin, Tamil
Currency : S$ (Singapore Dollar)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore Website: www.mfa.gov.sg
Thailand

Head of State : His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej

Head of Government : Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha
Capital : Bangkok
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language : Thai
Currency : Baht
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand Website: www.mfa.go.th

16

Viet Nam

Head of State : President Tran Dai Quang

Head of Government : Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc
Capital : Ha Noi
National Flag : Click Here for detail Specification.
Language : Vietnamese
Currency : Dong
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam Website: www.mofa.gov.vn

ASEAN Conception and Evolution by THANAT KHOMAN

Home/ASEAN Conception and Evolution by THANAT KHOMAN
ASEAN Conception and Evolution by THANAT KHOMAN
On 8 August 1967 the Bangkok Declaration gave birth to ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, an
organization that would unite five countries in a joint effort to promote economic co-operation and the welfare of their
peoples.
After repeated unsuccessful attempts in the past, this event was a unique achievement, ending the separation and
aloofness of the countries of this region that had resulted from colonial times when they were forced by the colonial
masters to live in cloisons etanches, shunning contact with the neighboring countries.
In effect this historical event represented the culmination of the decolonization process that had started after World War II.
Following their victory in the war, the colonial powers tried their best to maintain the status quo. However, since they had
not even been able to ensure the protection of their territories against the Japanese invasion, how could they justify their
claim to control them again. In their defeat, the Japanese had effectively undermined colonial rule by granting some form
of autonomy or even independence to the territories they had earlier invaded, thus sowing the seeds of freedom from the
colonial masters. The process of decolonization, inside and outside the United Nations, then advanced at a fast pace and
led to the emergence of a number of independent and sovereign nations.
This created an entirely novel situation which necessitated new measures and structures. Thailand, as the only nation
which had been spared the plight of colonial subjection thanks to the wisdom and political skill of its Monarchs, felt it a
duty to deal with the new contingencies. Pridi Panomyong, a former Prime Minister and statesman, tried to promote new
relationships and co-operation within the region. I, myself, posted as the first Thai diplomat in the newly independent India,
wrote a few articles advocating some form of regional co-operation in Southeast Asia. But the time was not yet propitious.
The world was then divided by the Cold War into two rival camps vying for domination over the other, leading the newly
emerging states to adopt a non-aligned stance.
When, as Foreign Minister, I was entrusted with the responsibility of Thailands foreign relations, I paid visits to
neighboring countries to forge co-operative relationships in Southeast Asia. The results were, however, depressingly
negative. Only an embryonic organization, ASA or the Association of Southeast Asia, grouping Malaysia, the Philippines,
and Thailand could be set up. This took place in 1961. It was, nevertheless, the first organization for regional co-operation
in Southeast Asia.
But why did this region need an organization for co-operation?
The reasons were numerous. The most important of them was the fact that, with the withdrawal of the colonial powers,
there would have been a power vacuum which could have attracted outsiders to step in for political gains. As the colonial
masters had discouraged any form of intra-regional contact, the idea of neighbors working together in a joint effort was
thus to be encouraged.
Secondly, as many of us knew from experience, especially with the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization or SEATO, co-

17

operation among disparate members located in distant lands could be ineffective. We had therefore to strive to build cooperation among those who lived close to one another and shared common interests.
Thirdly, the need to join forces became imperative for the Southeast Asian countries in order to be heard and to be
effective. This was the truth that we sadly had to learn. The motivation for our efforts to band together was thus to
strengthen our position and protect ourselves against Big Power rivalry.
Finally, it is common knowledge that co- operation and ultimately integration s.erve the interests of all- something that
individual efforts can never achieve.
However, co-operation is easier said than done.
Soon after its establishment in 1961, ASA or the Association of Southeast Asia, the mini organization comprising only
three members, ran into a snag. A territorial dispute, relating to a colonial legacy, erupted between the Philippines and
Indonesia on the one hand and Malaysia on the other. The dispute centred on the fact that the British Administration, upon
withdrawal from North Borneo (Sabah), had attributed jurisdiction of the territory to Malaysia. The konfrontasi, as the
Indonesians called it, threatened to boil over into an international conflict as Malaysia asked its ally, Great Britain, to come
to its support and British warships began to cruise along the coast of Sumatra. That unexpected turn of events caused the
collapse of the fledgling ASA.
While ASA was paralysed by the dispute on Sabah, efforts continued to be made in Bangkok for the creation of another
organization. Thus in 1966 a larger grouping, with East Asian nations like Japan and South Korea as well as Malaysia, the
Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand, South Vietnam and Thailand, was established and known as ASPAC or the
Asian and Pacific Council.
However, once again, calamity struck. ASPAC was afflicted by the vagaries of international politics. The admission of the
Peoples Republic of China and the eviction of the Republic of China or Taiwan made it impossible for some of the
Councils members to sit at the same conference table. ASPAC consequently folded up in 1975, marking another failure in
regional co-operation.
With this new misfortune, Thailand, which had remained neutral in the Sabah dispute, turned its attention to the problem
brewing to its south and took on a conciliatory role in the dispute. At the time, I had to ply between Jakarta, Manila, and
Kuala Lumpur. After many attempts, our efforts paid off. Preferring Bangkok to Tokyo, the antagonists came to our capital
city to effect their reconciliation.
At the banquet marking the reconciliation between the three disputants, I broached the idea of forming another
organization for regional co-operation with Adam Malik, then Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Indonesia, the
largest country of Southeast Asia. Malik agreed without hesitation but asked for time to talk with the powerful military circle
of his government and also to normalize relations with Malaysia now that the confrontation was over. Meanwhile, the Thai
Foreign Office prepared a draft charter of the new institution. Within a few months, everything was ready. I therefore
invited the two former ASA members, Malaysia and the Philippines, and Indonesia, a key member, to a meeting in
Bangkok. In addition, Singapore sent S. Rajaratnam, then Foreign Minister, to see me about joining the new set-up.
Although the new organization was planned to comprise only the former ASA members plus Indonesia, Singapores
request was favourably considered.
The first formal meeting of representatives from the five countries -Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and
Thailand -was held in the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The group then retired to the seaside resort of Bangsaen
(Pattaya did not exist at that time) where, combining work with leisure -golf to be more exact -the ASEAN charter was
worked out. After a couple of days, using the Foreign Office draft as the basis, the Charter was ready. The participants
returned to Bangkok for final approval of the draft, and on 8 August 1967, the Bangkok Declaration gave birth to ASEAN
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (ASEAN owes its name to Adam Malik, master in coining acronyms.)
The formation of ASEAN, the first successful attempt at forging regional co-operation, was actually inspired and guided by
past events in many areas of the world including Southeast Asia itself. The fact that the Western powers, France and
Britain, reneged on their pacts with Poland and Czechoslovakia promising protection against external aggression, was
instrumental in drawing the attention of many countries to the credibility of assurances advanced by larger powers to
smaller partners. The lesson drawn from such events encouraged weak nations to rely more on neighborly mutual support
than on stronger states that serve their own national interests rather than those of smaller partners. For Thailand, in
particular, its disappointing experience with SEATO taught it the lesson that it was useless and even dangerous to hitch its
destiny to distant powers who may cut loose at any moment their ties and obligations with lesser and distant allies.
Another principle to which we anchored our faith was that our co-operation should deal with non-military matters. Attempts
were made by some to launch us on the path of forming a military alliance. We resisted; wisely and correctly we stuck to
our resolve to exclude military entanglement and remain safely on economic ground.
It should be put on record that, for many of us and for me in particular, our model has been and still is, the European
Community, not because I was trained there, but because it is the most suitable form for us living in this part of the world
-in spite of our parallel economies which are quite different from the European ones.
However, although we had clearly defined our aims and aspirations, international realities forced ASEAN to deviate from
its original path. Several developments began to preoccupy ASEAN: the defeat and withdrawal of the United States from
Vietnam and even from the mainland of Asia; the growing Vietnamese ambitions nurtured by the heady wine of victory;
and the threat of Ho Chi Minhs testament enjoining generations of Vietnamese to take over the rest of French Indochina
in addition to the northeastern provinces of Thailand. Such developments forced ASEAN to turn its attention to more
critical issues, like Cambodia, with the result that economic matters were almost entirely neglected and set aside.
Although not the original plan or intention of the founders of ASEAN, the effective and successful opposition to the
implementation of Vietnams Grand Design, using only diplomatic and political means, won a great deal of plaudits and
international credit, lifting it from an insignificant grouping of small countries to a much courted organization with which
more important states now seek to have contact and dialogue. This has not been a negligible result. Indeed, ASEAN has
greatly benefited from its deviated performance. ASEAN has now become a well established international fixture.
While applauding the successes of the Association, it is not my intention to pass over its weaknesses and shortcomings.
In the first place, the partnership spirit is not fully developed. Some parties seek to take more than to give even if in

18

choosing the latter course, they may be able to take much more later on. Indeed, some of them do not hesitate to reduce
their allotted share in projects, which, in their opinion, would not immediately bring the highest return, and thus they leave
the burden to other members. In fact, it is common practice at many meetings, to jockey for selfish gains and advantages,
not bearing in mind the general interest.
Nevertheless, the most serious shortcoming of the present system resides in the lack of political will as well as the lack of
trust and sincerity towards one another. Yet each and everyone in their heart realizes that the advantages of ASEAN
accrue to them all, and no one is thinking of leaving it.
Be that as it may, there is no readiness to admit to these shortcomings. That is why they put the blame for these
deficiencies on the Secretariat which was set up by the governments themselves. Indeed, they distrust their subordinate
officials to the point that they have not been willing, until recently, to appoint a Secretary-General of ASEAN, but only a
Secretary-General in charge of the Secretariat.
Whatever problems exist at present, it is not my intention to dwell on them. They should, however, be resolved as
expeditiously and effectively as possible. Personally, I prefer to look ahead and chart out a course that will lead to the
objectives originally set out, so as to meet the expectations of our peoples.
The question we should ask is: ASEAN, quo vadis? Where do we go from here?
To this, I would reply that, first of all, we must set ourselves on the economic track we designed for the Association. This is
necessary, even imperative, now more than ever as the world is being carved into powerful trade zones that deal with one
another instead of with individual nations. At present, many countries outside our region are prodding us to integrate so
that a single or more unified market will simplify and facilitate trade. That stands to reason and yet it was only in 1992
when all partners were convinced of the veracity of the proposition, when the then Thai Prime Minister, Anand
Panyarachun, officially put the idea of an ASEAN Free Trade Area for discussion at the ASEAN Summit at Singapore. This
meaningful move was logical since ASEAN was born in Thailand. However, it may take some fifteen years -as requested
by some members -before a rudimentary single, integrated market comes into being.
For the months and years to come, gradual economic integration should be the credo for ASEAN if we want our enterprise
to remain viable and continue to progress. Otherwise, it may become stagnant, unable to keep up with the pace of global
activity. In spite of the Maastricht setback where the Danes voted against ratifying the Treaty on European Union, the
European Community will most probably witness sustained expansion with the addition of former EFTA members as well
as a number of Central and East European countries waiting to join. Meanwhile, NAFTA -the North American Free Trade
Area -is coming into being, parallel to another one further south of the American continent. Likewise, on the southeast
wing of Europe, Turkey is busy organizing some form of co-operation with the Islamic states of the Black Sea region of the
defunct Soviet Union. All these activities should be sufficient indication that there is an urgent need for ASEAN to
scrutinize itself, to update its role, and to implement wider and more serious organizational reforms -measures that are
more meaningful than simply revamping the Secretariat.
On the non-technical side, political will and the spirit of partnership greatly need to be strengthened. In the future,
competition will be severe. Political and economic pressure through the use of unilateral measures and threats will be
resorted to without mercy by those who believe in brute force rather than civilized negotiations, a method which I call
crowbar diplomacy proudly proposed by the Amazon Warrior before the legislative authorities of her country. Without
appropriate adjustments and improvements, ASEAN may lose in the race for survival. And time is of the essence. ASEAN,
in my opinion, does not have much leeway to idle or doodle. We should realize that two or three years are all we really
have to implement urgent reforms.
While the pursuit of economic aims, as originally assigned, is essential, it does not mean the Association should abandon
the considerable political gains it has made. On the contrary, ASEAN should continue to build upon the prestige and
recognition that the outside world has accorded it. The results of ASEANs past performance especially in the resistance
against Vietnamese military conquests and territorial expansionism, as well as the unqualified success in preserving
peace and stability against all odds, are evident. Without doubt, ASEAN must strive to consolidate these assets which will
complement its efforts on the economic side. In other words, the arduous task ahead for the Association will be a doubleor triple- track endeavour which can be crowned with success provided that the weaknesses mentioned earlier are
remedied and all the members, for their own good and that of their people, decide to carry out their duties and obligations
with determination and a sense of purpose.
On the other hand, we should foresee that, in time to come, not only will ASEAN have to face the difficult task of creating
and maintaining harmony among its members who have different views, different interests, and are of different stages of
development -factors that in the past have made the adoption of needed reforms so uneasy -but ASEAN will also have to
cope with the extremely complicated problems of dealing with hard-nosed opponents and interlocutors among the
developed countries.
Finally, as with all organizations and entities, ASEAN will have to realize that it will not be nor can it be the ultimate
creation. In truth, it should be only a stepping stone, a preliminary or intermediate stage in the process of international
development. As the world progresses, so will ASEAN. At this juncture, everyone within the Association is aware of this
reality. It should be prepared to move on to the next stage and raise its sights towards wider horizons. Some nascent
possibilities like PECC (the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council) and APEC (the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation
forum) are already in existence and more or less ready to bloom into something more stable and viable. So far, ASEAN
members have not been willing to merge with the new entities, for various reasons, the most important of which may be a
lack of conviction in the latters viability. Perhaps correctly, ASEAN members prefer to wait for more convincing indications
assuring them of their capacity to survive. They continue to insist that ASEAN remains the nucleus from which peripheral
relationships might radiate. This is not an unwise approach, apparently dictated by realism and caution in view of the
audacity and increasing arrogance of certain major powers. A precipitous decision may result in undesirable entanglement
or worse strangulation. Nevertheless, it may be wise for ASEAN not to lose sight of two important countries further to the
south of Asia -Australia and New Zealand. If and when, they should express a clear willingness and desire to playa
genuine partnership role, they should be welcome to join in any common endeavour. Their contribution will undoubtedly
increase the strength and capacity of our existing and future co-operative undertakings, thus enabling us to meet with

19

every chance of success in future encounters and negotiations with similar entities of other continents.
Lately, ASEAN has taken up a new assignment by engaging in discussions on security matters, more precisely on the
Spratly Islands which are claimed by a number of nations, including Vietnam and the Peoples Republic of China. The
dispute threatened to erupt into an armed conflict after concessions for oil exploration were granted by the Peoples
Republic of China to some American oil companies. If one or more contestants resort to violence the dispute may
degenerate into an ugly conflict thereby disrupting the peace and stability of the region. For that reason, Indonesia has
already been moved to organize workshop discussions to explore the possibility of an acceptable solution.
In the light of the Spratly problem, the ASEAN members prepared a draft Code of International Behaviour which rules
out any resort to violence. This draft was tabled at the Manila Ministerial Meeting in 1992 which approved it, as did the
PRC and Vietnam, a dialogue partner and a signatory of the ASEAN Treaty on Amity and Co-operation respectively. This
was what ASEAN could do, although it was only a moral gesture. Obviously, it could not obtain from the main parties to
the dispute, a categorical pledge not to resort to violence. It may not be much. It was nevertheless better than nothing and
certainly better than to bury ones head in the sand. It is hoped that in this, as in any other case, wisdom and restraint will
prevail.
What will ultimately be the fate of ASEAN?
To this question, I am ready to offer a candid reply, forgetting my role as a co-founder of the Association. My faith in the
usefulness and serviceability of ASEAN cannot and will not diminish. If anything, members will find it beneficial to
strengthen it. This is the rationale. In the post Cold War world, the Western countries find it fit to assert with little restraint
or moderation their ascendancy and dominance, and some even seek to establish their hegemony over the entire world
by claiming undisputed leadership in a so-called New World Order framework because of the absence of Soviet challenge
and rivalry. The ultimate result would be that other nations will, ipso facto, become nothing but mere pawns of different
size. The smaller ones will shrink still further and become even smaller and less significant. In fact, they will count less on
the world scene than before the advent of the New World Order. Therefore, if they do not combine their minuscule
strength, they will lose all meaning. Now the only place where they can do something with a measure of success is none
other than the ASEAN forum. Therefore, for our own interests, we cannot afford to be oblivious of this plain truth and fail to
act accordingly.
Bangkok
1 September 1992
The author was the Foreign Minister of Thailand when ASEAN was founded in Bangkok in 1967. This article was reprinted
from The ASEAN Reader, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1992.
Further readings in ASEAN History: S. Rajaratnam, ASEAN: The Way Ahead, in The ASEAN Reader, Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 1992.
July 9th, 2012
ASEAN The Way Ahead by S. RAJARATNAM
Home/ASEAN The Way Ahead by S. RAJARATNAM
ASEAN The Way Ahead by S. RAJARATNAM
If the last decade of the 20th century, to whose final death throes we are now the unhappy witnesses, can be termed the
Age of Nationalism, then the 21st century, whose pale dawn is visible over the horizon, can be aptly described as the
Coming Age of Regionalism.
This Foreword focuses on regionalism rather than on ASEAN because the latter is no more than a local manifestation of a
global political, economic and cultural development which will shape the history of the next century.
Should regionalism collapse, then ASEAN too will go the way of earlier regional attempts like SEATO, ASA and
MAPHlLlNDO. All that remains today of these earlier experiments are their bleached bones. Should the new regional
efforts collapse, then globalism, the final stage of historical development, will also fall apart. Then we will inevitably enter
another Dark Ages and World War III, fought this time not with gun-powder, but with nuclear weapons far more
devastating than those exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Modern technology and science are pushing the world simultaneously in the direction of regionalism and globalism. What
is responsible for todays economic disintegration, disorder and violence is the resistance offered by nationalism to the
irresistible counter-pressures of regionalism and globalism.
As of today, there are only two functioning and highly respected regional organizations in the world. They are, in order of
their importance and seniority, the European Community (EC) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The first came into being in 1957 and the second in 1967. A mere ten years separates the two. The population of the
European Community as at 1990 was 350 million, and that of ASEAN an estimated 323 million. In terms of population,
they are not all that unequal. In terms of political and economic dynamism, though, the gap is qualitatively wider. The
economic dynamism and the proven political cohesion of ASEAN is nevertheless slowly but steadily narrowing the gap

20

between the European Community and ASEAN. To compare ASEAN with the so-called Little Dragons of Asia is to
compare unrelated political species. The Little Dragons are lone wolves hunting separately. They lack collective strength
or awareness. With them it is a case of each wolf for itself. In the case of ASEAN, as integration proceeds, its strength will
be the cohesiveness of over 300 million people with far greater resources than any of the lone baby dragons.
The most remarkable feature about the two regional organizations is their continuity and coherence despite the
persistence and often unmanageable turbulence and tensions that have and still characterize the post-war world. There
have been some 100 international, civil, racial and religious conflicts. Far from abating, these are growing in number. By
comparison the European Community and ASEAN are the still centres in the eye of the storm. There is apprehension that
chaos, not order, is the draft of world politics and economies today. For many, the expectation is that tomorrow will be
worse than yesterday and that history has been a descent from the Golden Age to the Dark Ages. To quote the poet Yeats,
though the world is seemingly intact: Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold.
Yet the two multi-racial and multi-cultural regional organizations I have mentioned con- tinue to grow in maturity,
cohesiveness, and confidence. They believe that regionalism can survive the buffeting winds and storms.
The European Community, unlike ASEAN, has had far more experience with regional organization because its founding
members, in particular Britain, France, Holland, Belgium and even Germany participated in the creation and management
of far-flung complex global empires. Their scientific and technological cultures were many light years ahead of all
preceding cultures and civilizations. However eminent and admirable pre-European tradi- tional civilizations were, the 19th
and 20th century culture created by the West cannot be surpassed or displaced by invoking ancient creeds. Only Japan
has so far demonstrated that the gap between medieval and modern cultures can be narrowed and possibly over taken.
Moreover, only Western nations and Japan have demonstrated a capacity for con- structing massive modern empires,
though unfortunately, they demonstrated this by their ability to organize and unleash modern wars. No Asian nation,
however, has fought, let alone won, wars of comparable magnitude. Saddam Husseins chest-thumping has the
resonance of hollow drums.
Western Europeans have over a period of 500 years built a chain of multi-racial and multi-national empires that at their
peak stretched from Portugal and Spain to the Pacific shores of Russia, and parts of Asia and Africa. So reconstituting a
West European regional community should be childs play for them.
But creating and managing, within a brief period of only 25 years, an ASEAN community of six economically and
industrially under-developed peoples who had no experience of administering a modern, complex multi-racial regional
organization verges, in my view, on the miraculous.
The reach of the ancient empires of Greece, Rome, China, India, Persia and Babylon, ruled by allegedly Divine emperors,
was ludicrously short and their claims of being rulers of World empires were fanciful exaggerations. The effective extent of
their empires did not go beyond the palace and surrounding villages.
Modern nationalism, regionalism and globalism are of a different order politically, economically and even psychologically.
Nationalism is a 19th century concept. Earlier forms of nationalism were, in fact, imperialism. It united petty principalities,
states and clans into nations. These have now outlived their usefulness.
But regionalism is based on concepts and aspirations of a higher order. Asian regionalism was first launched on 25 April
1955 at Bandung. It was initially a comprehensive Afro-Asian Conference presided over by Heads of Government. It
included legendary figures like Sukarno. Nehru, Zhou Enlai, Kotalawela of what was then Ceylon, Sihanouk and
Mohammed Ali, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. However, this regional effort did not last long. Asian and African
nationalisms which helped speed up the collapse of Western, and later Japanese imperialisms, did not last long.
Within a few years after its founding, not only Afro-Asian solidarity but also the solidarity of individual Asian and African
nation states was in disarray. The destruction of nationalism is today being brought about, not by Western imperialism,
which had already grown weary. thanks to two world wars, of holding sway over palm and pine, but by Third World
nationalism. The economic and political underpinnings of European nationalisms were in fact, even before the start of the
20th century, beginning to crack. In fact, Lord Acton. towards the end of the 19th century, predicted the inevitable collapse
of nationalism. I quote his judgement- Nationality does not aim either at liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to
the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the state. It will be marked by material and moral
ruin. This prophecy is as accurate today as it was when Lord Acton made it in 1862. So was Karl Marxs prophecy about
the inevitable collapse of nationalism but for different reasons. He predicted the overthrow of nationalism and capitalism
by an international proletariat. So did Lenin and so did Mao with their clarion call of: Workers of the World unite.
Internationalism has a long history. Chinese, Christians, Greeks, Romans and Muslims were never tired of announcing
themselves as World Rulers, However, after World War II, empires went out of fashion. It is today being gradually
replaced by a more rational form of political and economic organization.
The early years of the 20th century witnessed, for example, experiments with a novel form of regionalism -continental
regionalism. It was formed by simply prefixing the word Pan to the continents of Europe, Asia and America -Pan-Europa,
Pan-America and Pan-Asia, of which Japan, after having in 1905 defeated the Russian fleet in one of the most decisive
naval battles ever fought in the Tsushima Straits, became Asias most persistent publicist. After World War II, Pan-African
and Pan-Arab movements were added to the list. However, these early Pan movements have since then either
collapsed totally or are in the process of violent disintegration because of dissension on grounds of race, religion,
language or nation.

21

However, the word Pan has recently been revived in East Europe. It is called Pan-Slavism and is today being revived
with bloody vengeance. The multi-racial and multi-cultural Yugoslav nation that President Tito created during World War
11 and which is today being torn apart is a grim warning of what can happen to nations possessed by racial and religious
demons.
The new regionalism that is now emerging out of the ruins of post-World War II nationalism appears to have learnt from
the errors of the past. A more sophisticated and realistic form of regionalism is being constructed, not as an end in itself
but as the means towards a higher level of political, social and economic organization.
I propose to do no more than list the names of some of the new regionalisms now taking shape. Basic to this approach is
that there is not going to be any sudden great leap forward from regionalism to globalism. However, none of the new
regionalisms now taking shape are as bold as either the European Community or ASEAN. The latter two are more
rationally focussed regionalism. But a word of caution is necessary. We must know how to handle these new regionalisms
intelligently. They could be steps towards global peace, progress and cultural development or they could be fuel
for World War III.
Foremost among the new regional approaches is the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the Asia-Pacific
Economic Co-operation forum. Among the many other regional concepts waiting in the wings are: the Organisation of
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); the Group of Seven (G7); East Asian Economic Caucus (EAEC);
Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference (PECC); the amiable Little Dragons of South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong
and Taiwan for which no acronym has yet been announced. There are also the distant rumbles of the possible emergence
of Big Dragons but as a Chinese saying goes: There is a lot of noise in the stairways, but nobody has so far entered the
room. One fervently hopes that when a Big Dragon turns up, it would be an amiable Great Dragon and one which would
know its way around the Spratly and Paracel Islands but without being a Dragon in a China shop. World War II started, it
must be remembered, simply because the German and Japanese Dragons got their maps all wrong.
Real regionalism requires a world-view if it is not to lose its way in the global world of modern technology and science. It
must also have a rational and deep understanding of the new history which is being shaped not by heroic individuals, but
through the co-operative inter-action of some 5 billion people who today live in a vastly shrunken planet and who, thanks
to growing literacy and fast-as-light electronic communication, are better informed about the world we live in than earlier
generations. Nobody, not even super-computers can predict what will happen when each day the flow of history is
cumulatively determined by individual decisions made by 5 billion human beings who are asserting their right to a decent
and just society. Fewer and fewer people today believe that oppression, hunger and injustice is Gods will to which they
must meekly submit. People today know the difference between Let us pray and Let us prey.
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism has, in no way, made for a more peaceful world. Wars have
ended in the West- ern world but not so elsewhere. World War III, should it ever be unleashed, would be the last war
mankind will ever fight.
As a student of history, I believe that it is not common ideals but common fears that generally hold groups and nations
together. The moment the common fear disappears, the brotherhood becomes an arena for dissension, conflict and even
bloodshed. Two world wars and what is going on in Africa, Asia and Central Europe provide ample proof that we live in
dangerous times today.
However, I believe there is evidence suggesting that ASEAN is an exception to the rule. ASEAN was born on 8 August
1967 out of fear rather than idealistic convictions about regionalism. As one of the two still surviving founder members of
ASEAN (the other being Dr Thanat Khoman) I can attest to the triumph of fear over ideals.
The anticipated military withdrawal of the Americans from Vietnam in the eighties raised the spectre of falling noncommunist dominoes in Southeast Asia. It appeared then that both the East and West winds of communism had joined
forces to sweep over Southeast Asia. Fortunately, Adam Smiths Invisible Hand carne to ASEANs rescue. The Sino-Soviet
split started. The East and West communist winds were suddenly blowing in contrary directions. The second outburst of
ASEAN fear was in December-January 1980 when Vietnam with the backing of the Soviet Union proclaimed the liberation
of not only its Indochina Empire but also of the whole of Southeast Asia.
Fortunately for the first time in the history of an Asian regionalism, ASEAN, instead of trembling with fear, dug its toes in
and decided to stand up against a Vietnam that had never ceased to boast that it had defeated two great Western powers
in Vietnam first the French and then the Americans.
So in the case of Vietnam, it was not belief in regionalism but resolution, born out of common fear, that eventually brought
about the collapse of communist Vietnam.
Today a new fear haunts ASEAN and which, I believe, now makes inevitable the emergence of ASEAN regional solidarity,
and, no less important, the actualization of the ASEAN Free Trade Area or AFTA. I also believe this solidarity will manifest
itself politically and militarily so long as a common fear persists.

22

Singapore
1 September 1992

23