Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

CHECKING ASEAN’S HARMONY

AT THE BORDER 1

Purwo Santoso 2 and Joash Tapiheru 3

Abstract
Abstract

In deepening of political, economic and cultural integration among the ASEAN countries, this paper envisage a regime which keep facilitating the bilateral and collective engagement people in the region, to allow the optimal mobility of good accordingly for common prosperity in the region. The challenge is how to make it happens without compromising the sovereignty of each country. One possible answer is to develop all encompassing and smart risk management. Experience of European countries suggest that the development of a trans-national regime in that continent involve a careful use of epistemic community for producing collective risk assessment, which in turn feeds decision making in each sovereign state. The mobility of goods and people are thoroughly monitored thank to the reliable information system or knowledge management they have established. It ends up with the fact that, there is no urgency of stopping the mobility of goods and people across the member countries at the border zones. What is the ASEAN solution to serve the same purpose? This paper will assess it.

There is not need to tell that required regime formation for ASEAN would be laborious

and time consuming, but this is the price that each member country have prepared to

pay. In this regard, this paper proposes a knowledge-based model of ASEAN

1 Presented at The International Conference on ASEAN Studies (ICONAS 2), Jointly organized by Gadjah Mada University and Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 3-5 Agustus,

2015. 2 Professor of Government, and Head of the Department of Government and Politics,

Faculty of Professor Social and of Political Government, Science, and Gadjah Head Mada of the University, Department Indonesia. of Government and Politics, 3 Freelance researcher

2

Harmonization, given the fact that the formation of the regime involves dedicated network and knowledge management. As EU’s model tells, the model inevitably links epistemic communities including universities, think tanks, and research centers from all of the member countries with process of decision making at each country. In checking the progress of the regime formation, the model emphasizes the strategic role of border regime. The point here is twofold. First, border regime should be changing in accordance with the footprint of cross-national harmonization. Second, analysis and transformation of border regime would be practically useful to accelerate the harmonization.

would be practically useful to accelerate the harmonization. A. THE CHANGING NATURE OF ASEAN: FROM POLITICAL

A.

THE CHANGING NATURE OF ASEAN:

FROM POLITICAL ASSOCIATION TO REGIONAL COMMUNITY

The ongoing process of transformation of ASEAN from a political association into a regional community eventually has broad impacts on how ASEAN and its member countries conduct themselves. One crucial challenge in order to carry this transformation process toward its intended goals is to manage the paradox, namely the of softening the borders among the ASEAN member states, while at the same time, maintain their respective national sovereignty. Almost all of ASEAN member states are not unacquainted with border related issues, whether it be between or among fellow ASEAN member states or ASEAN member and non-member states. While the broader issue remains the same, namely border, the changing nature of ASEAN from a political association into a regional community demands new perspective and approach on how this issue of border governance and other related issues should be addressed.

This paper aims to shed light on the possible trajectory of border related issues under the new arrangement of ASEAN Community, how the currently available mechanisms to address them, and possible alternatives to further develop those mechanisms to suit the new situation. One underlying premise in this paper is that the transformation of ASEAN from a political association into a regional community implies broadening of

issues and matters, that ASEAN member country have to address. As a political association of sovereign nation-states in the Southeast Asian region ASEAN only had to deal with regional issues that the governments of its member states agreed upon to frame it as regional issues. This will surely change when the more actors beyond the governmental ones are included in the regional or trans-national policy-making process.

The model of border governance recommended in this paper for ASEAN to deal with this border related issues under the new situation is hardly a new one. In fact, the ASEAN has officially stated and initiated attempt to open broader opportunities for the non-state actors to get involved in the regional policy making process. It has been known as the multiple-track diplomacy of ASEAN covering government-to- government, university-to-university, and people-to-people diplomacies. This important measure, however, has not been fully developed to address border related issues within the ASEAN Community. 4

address border related issues within the ASEAN Community. 4 There are several major challenges for developing

There are several major challenges for developing and adjusting this framework into ASEAN formal and standard working procedures and mechanism. One among others is the institutionalized norms of the state dominated policy process in ASEAN. Despite the general relatively good performance of ASEAN in managing border related issues, including disputes, among its member states, the tendency of state-dominated policy process and conventional security approach to address most of those issues and disputes should be examined closer especially its compatibility with the changing situation in ASEAN.

4 Santoso, Purwo and Joash Tapiheru, Knowledge Based Governance for Transforming Resource Dependency to Sustainable Development, paper presented in the International Conference on ASEAN Studies-ICONAS, 2014, Yogyakarta. See also Lopa, Consuelo Katrina A., “CSOs’ Engagement with ASEAN: Perspectives and Learnings” in Pandey, Nischal N. and Kumar Shresta, 2012, Building Bridges and Promoting People to People Interaction in South Asia, Kathmandu: Centre for South Asian Studies (CSAS)

B. TRANSFORMING THE PARADIGM FOR BORDER GOVERNANCE:

FROM STATE DOMINATED TO PEOPLE ORIENTED

The description of ASEAN’s transformation above is still a projection. The ASEAN Economic Community has just initiated this year of 2015. There are still many measures which have to be taken if this projection is to be brought into reality. One particular issue that demand immediate attention and breakthrough for solutions has been the issue of border governance. Most of all ASEAN member states have had to address and some are still addressing this issue of border governance whether it be with fellow ASEAN member or non-member states.

whether it be with fellow ASEAN member or non-member states. As a political association, ASEAN has

As a political association, ASEAN has been known for its particular approach to deal with various regional issues including border disputes. Unlike the European Union, the ASEAN does not posses the authority to intervene into the domestic politics of its member states even during the most dire situation. 5 In many cases of border disputes among its member states, it acts rather as facilitator for dispute resolution than an impartial third actor. In comparison with other regional bodies, like European Union or African Union, the roles and stated goals of ASEAN in issues such as border governance has been rather limited.

As in any other modern states, border is a crucial part, that signify the national sovereignty of a state. Thus, those countries have something vital at stake in dealing with this border governance issue. In some cases this issue even escalate into diplomatic battles with threat and use of force looming at the horizon just as recently happened between Thailand and Cambodia 6 and among Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippine and China over islands in South China Sea.

The role of ASEAN especially in border related issues and disputes settlement has been an object of study for many years. The role and relative success of ASEAN to create a

5 Kurlantzick, Joshua, 2012, ASEAN’s Future and Asian Integration, Working Paper, Council on Foreign Relations: International Institutions and Global Governance Program

6 Clouse, Thomas, “Thailand/Cambodia: Border Dispute and ASEAN’s Role” in Global Finance: the Magazine, March 2011, https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/march-2011/thailand- cambodia-border-dispute-and-aseans-role, accessed 20 th July 2015

relative political stability in the Southeast Asia region has been too important to ignore both during the Cold-War era and even greater in the period beyond. The performance of ASEAN to maintain peaceful and harmonious relations among the states in this region especially related to border issues and disputes is observable in the fact that despite there are still some unsettled disputes with only small exception they do not escalate into open armed conflict. 7

The ASEAN’s specific roles as facilitator in the border disputes settlement process and approaches to
The ASEAN’s specific roles as facilitator in the border disputes settlement process and
approaches to carry this roles, have also been described and explained in various
studies. Amer, Strachan, and Kurtlanzick in their respective work mentions the specific
ASEAN’s framework and approach to address border disputes and other regional issues.
These specific framework and approach are based on the principles of non-intervention
and consensus. 8
Amer and Kurtlanzick mention that this principles and the framework and approach
derived has long root in the context that surrounded the establishment of ASEAN that is
the Cold War. The member states of the ASEAN have diverse ideological standings and
the main concern that generated its establishment was to minimize the destructive
potentials and impacts of the ideological clash of the Cold War. 9 Considering the
diverse ideological stances among its member states consensus it is not a surprise that
the establishment of ASEAN and its operations always based on consideration to avoid
domination of more powerful neighbors over the less powerful one. The shared
historical experience of colonialism among the ASEAN member states, excluding
Thailand, also contributes to the sensitive nature of the issue of intervention of other
state or a supra-state bodies into domestic political life.
7
See
Amer,
Ramses,
“Managing
Border
Disputes
in
Southeast
Asia”
in
Kajian

Malaysia, jilid XVIII, nos 1&2, 2000

8 See Amer, op.cit; Kurlantzick, op.cit; Strachan, Anna Louise, 2009, Resolving Southeast Asian Territorial Disputes: A Role for the ICJ, Southeast Asia Research Programme- SEARP, New Delhi: Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies;

9 For analysis on the diversity of ideological stances of each ASEAN member states in 2006 related to their respective relations with China and the USA, see Vaugh, Bruce and Wayne M. Morrisson, 2006, China-Southeast Asia Relations: Trend, Issues, and Implications for the United States, Congressional Research Service-CRS Report to Congress, pp. 22-29.

While acknowledging the effectiveness of these framework and approach of non- intervention and consensus to achieve the stated goals of ASEAN, these studies, however, also point out its weaknesses and shortcomings especially in addressing issues developed in the Post-Cold War era. On the issues and disputes of border governance and border disputes Amer, Strachan, and Kurlanzick point out the tendency of the ASEAN member states to seek settlement through bilateral negotiation and hand it over to the International Court of Justice when it fails to produce commonly accepted agreement. Border dispute settlement between ASEAN member states through the ICJ has been taken in the cases of dispute involving Indonesia – Malaysia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan in the Western Celebes Sea and Malaysia – Singapore over the Pedra Branca Island.

Sea and Malaysia – Singapore over the Pedra Branca Island. Those studies mention that one of

Those studies mention that one of major shortcomings of this consensus approach on settling disputes among the ASEAN member states is its relatively slow negotiation process in order to reach effective settlement. Strachan underlines the need for ASEAN to take greater role in providing dispute settlement mechanism instead of merely playing the role as facilitator to it. Strachan also mentions that though the ASEAN member states have signed a charter, which provides the establishment of dispute settlement regional body and mechanism, there has been no concrete realization of these provisions. 10

Seeing the existing norms and mechanisms for border governance issues and dispute settlements within the changing situation of ASEAN, Strachan points out that the adherence to the non-intervention principles has barred ASEAN to play greater role and offer more efficient dispute settlement. In the broader scope of ASEAN integration as community, Kurlanzick points out the need to give broader authority for the ASEAN as a regional body, at the expense of the adherence toward the principles of consensus. 11

While it is important to draw knowledge and experience from other regional bodies, such as European Union; the African Union; the Organization of American States-OAS, and how they work, it is necessary to pin point the need to consider the so-called

10 Strachan, op.cit., p. 3 11 Kurlanzick, op.cit., 11-13

context as an influential variable. The changing nature of ASEAN and its surrounding context will render us to consider beyond the formal institutional aspect for arranging a supra-state regional body.

While acknowledging the points made in those studies, it is necessary to point out the fact that the perspective, approach, and, thus, the data supporting the studies of Amer, Strachan, Kurlanzick, Vaughn and Morrison respectively heavily lean on the formal institutional perspective, thus implicitly reproduce the state-dominated policy process of ASEAN. Amer does point out the use of informal diplomacy channel among the ASEAN diplomats, besides the formal one, to address regional issues, including border disputes. However, these informal diplomacies involve only a handful of diplomats, members of formal policy communities at the ASEAN level. The disputes over border have also been largely dominated with issues such as delineating the border lines, in other words defining state’s territory. This is based on the presumption that the connotations of nation and state is something given.

the connotations of nation and state is something given. The policy process in ASEAN, including on

The policy process in ASEAN, including on border related issues, shares formalism tendency in the aforementioned studies. It largely relies on the notion that connotes the terms of nation and state. It leads to the tendency of one-dimensional way of thinking on what border related issues and problems are, and how they should be addressed. Unfortunately, this imagination only partially reflects to day-to-day realities in the border regions in most of the ASEAN member states.

For example, the policy process on border related issues often not proportionally considered the fact that the current borderlines which define the states in Southeast Asia region is a product of the exercise of colonial power. Most of the delineation process, were based on negotiations among those colonial powers and their interests. Thus, it is not surprising that we find many cases where people live on different sides of borderlines as part of different nations but shares common culture, language, religion and any other features which would have been sufficient for them to demand recognition as one nation. 12 While such people may be administratively registered as

12 See for example Sanak, Yohanes, 2012, Human Security dan Politik Perbatasan, Yogyakarta: PolGov-JPP UGM; see also Lay, Cornelis et.al., 2013, Rethinking the Border: In

belong to different countries, in day-to-day realities they may consider themselves as members of one entities of tribe or ethnic group and considered the state borderline as something irrelevant or even an obstacle. In many regards, this other aspect of border and border governance has not been proportionally considered in the policy process both at the domestic and the regional level.

Further, the formation of ASEAN community itself is something that requires intensive and continuous discursive engagement process. Just as a nation, a regional community is an imagined community. This imagination as a community requires a commonly shared vision about what kind of community they commonly belong to, including what distinguish it with other entities including nation, ethnic group, tribe etc. 13 While investing broader authority for the ASEAN as a regional body might be required to further share and institutionalized a common vision of ASEAN Community, such measure in itself is insufficient. This paper even argues, contrary to Kurlanzick and Strachan’s conclusive points on the need to invest broader authority for the ASEAN as a regional body, including to intervene into its member states domestic affairs when it is deemed necessary, that in ASEAN ‘s context such measure should be considered as the result of the regional community building process rather than something that should be done to generate that process in such initial phase.

be done to generate that process in such initial phase. The urgency to initiate such regional

The urgency to initiate such regional community building is apparent when we take a closer look at the current level of preparedness among the society of ASEAN member states. While the author does not have the bigger picture on this matter at the regional- wide scope, small research among the youth in the Yogyakarta region in Indonesia carried by the end of 2014 may provide us with a hint. It is pretty surprising that this research finds that most of the youth, regardless their high exposure to international engagement have only little knowledge, some even totally unaware of the plan for

ASEAN community. 14 Most of them still perceive ASEAN as the political association as it has been introduced and presented before. We can cautiously assume that similar situation is also happening in many other parts of the ASEAN member states.

However, contemporary with that study, we also find that in various smaller circles of academic communities and NGOs in ASEAN member states, there has been networks that nurture the embryo of community identification beyond national borders. There have been in numerous occasions these communities engage common issues such as environmental degradation, human rights, community development and many others where they share their knowledge and experience and even consolidate common efforts to further their cause into the policy agenda either at domestic or regional level. 15

policy agenda either at domestic or regional level. 1 5 In the formal state domain, similar

In the formal state domain, similar process has also been taking place for longer period. The formal policy process in ASEAN always involves expert meetings as part of the formal phase in the policy process. Related to the plan with ASEAN Economic Community Plan, there have been several regional attempts to build the necessary standardized infrastructure, such as on statistics administration; tariffs and many others, involving experts representing each of ASEAN member states. 16 Similar pattern has also been found in the bilateral negotiations related to border dispute settlements involving fellow ASEAN member and non-member states. 17

14 Wicaksono, Ario et.al., 2014, ASEAN Community and Sense of Ownership: Measuring Youth Perception and Orientation Towards ASEAN Community 2015, Case in City of Yogyakarta-Indonesia, Research Report, Yogyakarta: ASEAN Study Center, Gadjah Mada University

15 See Tapiheru, Joash and Primi S.P., 2014, Transnational Civic Engagement and Campaign for EITI in Southeast Asian Countries, paper presented in International Conference on ASEAN Studies-ICONAS 2014, Yogyakarta. The research on community awareness and ownership’s finding confirms that the knowledge and awareness on the plan for ASEAN community among the youth in Yogyakarta is highest among the academic community and NGO activists in comparison with other groups such as business community and high school students. See also Winanti, Poppy S. and Hasrul Hanif, 2014, Transnational Advocacy for Advocating Governance Reform in Extractive Industries in Asean: Make Transparency Works, paper presented in International Conference on ASEAN Studies-ICONAS 2014, Yogyakarta

16 See Santoso and Tapiheru, op.cit., pp. 15-17

17 Amer, op.cit.

From those studies we may draw a picture that the community building process has been taking place at various points with varying scope and influence among communities in ASEAN member states. While ASEAN acknowledge their existence and formally frame these activities and process in its multiple-track diplomacy concept, those studies give the situational picture that these process are still fragmented and not fully integrated into a broader and more systematic design for regional community building attempt yet.

The transformation of ASEAN from a political association into a regional community provides the momentum to connect these nodes of networks with the formal policy process. However, merely investing the ASEAN as regional body with broader authority like the European Union will be insufficient without concerted action which is based on shared vision and ideas beyond the formal policy communities at the ASEAN level to include other elements of the projected ASEAN community.

to include other elements of the projected ASEAN community. C. EPISTEMIC COMMUNITY FOR CONSTRU CTING AND

C.

EPISTEMIC COMMUNITY FOR CONSTRU CTING AND SHARING THE VISION FOR ASEAN COMMUNITY AND GOVERNING THE BORDERS

In pointing the primacy of the epistemic community in governing the borders within the context of ASEAN Community, this paper is following and further developing the most recent studies on border and border governance. Studiies conducted by Emmanuele Brunete-Jaily, Julie Mostov, Vladimir Kolosov argue that border is socially constructed phenomena. 18 Mostov further points out that the current trend leans more toward softer

Interdisciplinary

Perspective” in Geopolitics Journal, Vol. 10. Issue 4; Kolossov, Vladimir. 2005. “Border Studies:

Changing Perspectives and Theoretical

Approaches” in Geopolitics Journal, Vol. 10. Issue 4; Brunet-Jaily, Emmanuel. 2011. “Special Section: Border, Borderlands, and Theory: an Introduction” in Geopolitics Journal Vol. 16, Issue 1

18

See

Brunet-Jailly,

Emmanuel.

2005.

“Theorizing

Borders:

An

definition of border, moving away from the hard-border paradigm. 19 Mostov’s point reflects the phenomenon of growing numbers of regionalization and establishment of various free trade zone of our current era which based on changing paradigm on what national boundaries mean and how they should be governed.

In the ASEAN context the necessity of epistemic community in order to share and institutionalize the common vision of ASEAN has never been more important as recent studies reveal that national boundaries is not the only existing boundaries which structure the very livelihood of the people who live behind it. Within and across the currently dominant regime of nation-state in this region, there are other regimes, each with its own social formation and subject positions which co-exist with the nation-state and engage in continuous inter-play to structure the livelihood of the pretty much the same individuals.

the livelihood of the pretty much the same individuals. Lay et.al’s study on border governance in

Lay et.al’s study on border governance in the West Kalimantan, Indonesia and Serawak, Malaysia shows that there are multiple regimes, namely the state; the traditional ethnic group; the business and trade networks, that simultaneously structure the social life of the people who live in that area. Each regime set its own definition of border and drew its own borderline, which not always coincide with the national-state boundaries. 20 Yohanes Sanak also presents similar situation on his study on border governance in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia and Timor Leste. 21 It would not be an exaggeration if we assume that this is a common phenomenon in many other Southeast Asian countries.

The recent studies on border governance introduce another dimension where tons of useful information for producing necessary knowledge is scattered, namely the informal dimensions of border governance. This new dimension poses another challenge to formulate a knowledge based governance framework within the ASEAN, not only to address border related issues both all issues in general in the new context of ASEAN Community.

19 Mostov, Julie. 2008, Soft Border: Rethinking Sovereignty and Democracy, NY:

Palgrave Macmillan

20 Lay et.al., op.cit.

21 Sanak, op.cit.

The transformation of ASEAN, necessitating the transformation of the border governance regime, can be attributed to the wave of liberalization that has been sweeping across the globe. While this process of globalization has various manifestations in the pace, magnitude, and institutional impacts across the globe, there are common features, which signify it. One of these common features is the more limited role of the state to exercise its command and control authority in dealing with public matters and to rely more on market mechanism. 22 This does not mean that the state no longer carry and exercise the controlling role and function. It just change the strategy, means, and instruments for the state to carry this function. The state main role has been to ensure that the conditions for “perfect market”. This transformation sometimes has been summed up in the phrase of “From governing to steering”.

summed up in the phrase of “From governing to steering”. In other paper, the authors have

In other paper, the authors have recommended knowledge-based governance to define the role and strategies for the state to carry this function in the new situation. The knowledge-based governance is the middle way between the command-and-control paradigm of governing and the market-mechanism. 23 Reflecting on the European experience, that paper also points out that the EU owes its governance effectiveness to their ability to transform knowledge into control. On its turn, knowledge is produced through gathering, selecting, and processing scattered information. 24

In the general policy process at domestic and regional level knowledge based governance has been an integral part. At ASEAN level, we have the so-called Eminent Person Groups-EPGs on various strategic issues to provide the necessary knowledge as the basis for policy-making process on that certain issues. However, the state-dominated tendency of policy process both at domestic and regional level among the ASEAN member states has been based on the presumption of rational-comprehensive paradigm with the state as the all knowing actors. Clinging to such paradigm, knowledge

22 See Cheema, G. Shabbir; Christopher A. McNally; Vesselin Popovski (eds.). 2011, Cross Border Governance in Asia : Regional Issue and Mechanisms, Tokyo: United Nations University Press

23 See Santoso and Tapiheru, op.cit., p.5

24 Ibid., p. 10

accumulated among the non-state actors have been relatively excluded and not fully taken into consideration in the policy process.

The policy ideas of ASEAN Community, is organized into three clusters of politics, economy, and culture wrap in the buzzword of ASEAN Connectivity. It projects the softening of the national borders of its member states to allow more free in- and out- flow of goods, services, and people. The buzzword and narrative of ASEAN Connectivity may give the impression of unanimous consent from most, if not all, the elements which, constitute the ASEAN Community as a whole, represented by the government of each member state. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that most of the ASEAN member states has diverse society, where the idea of nation does not always coincide with the state. The term of connectivity also represents different meanings among the individual member states due to their differences in economic development, political dynamics, and foreign policy posture just to name few factors. 25

and foreign policy posture just to name few factors. 2 5 In order to produce a

In order to produce a viable and commonly accepted policy formula, it is necessary to specify the situation in each country and based the policy formulation at the regional level, and reciprocally calibrates it with one at the domestic level. We may use the formal categorization of the clusters of ASEAN Community as instruments for knowledge management and specifying the available policy instruments to transform the knowledge into operable control procedures and mechanisms.

While the currently existing framework at ASEAN focus mainly on the formal aspects of the livelihood in the ASEAN member states and are formulating the would be common-standard to implement the ASEAN Community Plan, we still need to ascertain that the informal aspect is equally considered.

The buzzword ASEAN Connectivity should not lead us into perception that before its initiation cross-border activities among ASEAN member states are limited to those legally sanctioned by their respective governments. Many studies shown that cross border activities in this region pre-date the advent of Western colonial-powers and its modern nation-state successors. Many of these activities are still taking place despite the

25 See Kurlanzick, op.cit.; see also Vaugh and Morrison, op.cit.

introduction of national boundaries. Under the regime of modern nation-state many of these activities then labeled as illegal or, at best, informal.

Information and knowledge on such informal phenomena is crucial if the ASEAN and its member states are to arrive at sound-policy. The existence of such phenomena have been widely acknowledge and proportional credit should be given to the civil society elements, academic communities, and government officials working in those border regions which have exposed them in their advocacy activities, research, and reports respectively. Such vital information, however, need to be further processed and presented as ready materials for policy making process.

and presented as ready materials for policy making process. ASEAN has acknowledged the vital roles of

ASEAN has acknowledged the vital roles of the non-state actors in providing the necessary knowledge and information for policy-making process. Universities, as main nodes of knowledge in the academic circles, provide some of the needed knowledge. In Indonesia, this has been further institutionalized with the establishment of several ASEAN Study Center at some universities in this region. The main role of this center is to produce the necessary knowledge to inform the policy making process related to ASEAN both at domestic and regional level. 26 While similar process of cooperation with various pace may have been taking place in other ASEAN member states, the existence of coordinated attempt based on a well-defined grand design among these think-tanks and the involved policy actors is still yet to be examined.

Similar process has also been taking place to include the civil society elements into the ASEAN Policy Making process. This is a move into the right direction. However, there has still been some concern on the framework since the ASEAN only allowed registered civil society organizations to get involved in the process.

The discussion on cross-domains knowledge based governance above should be put into the framework that defines and specifies the role of the government of each member

26 Officially, these ASCs run the function to produce knowledge and foster further cohesiveness of ASEAN as a community. See:

http://edukasi.kompas.com/read/2013/03/18/20022731/ASEAN.Study.Center.Didirik

an.di.Kampus.UI, accessed on 11 September 2014, and also:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/05/01/yogyakarta-gets-asean-study-

center.html, accessed on 11 September 2014.

states and the ASEAN as a regional body. Considering the relative reluctance from among most of the ASEAN member states to entrust the exercise some of their sovereignty to the supra-state institution such as ASEAN, the institutionalization of knowledge-based governance should be carried first and foremost at the domestic level. While how the knowledge produced and shared and the policies coordinated among the member states could be commonly designed and consented upon at the regional level.

Investing broader opportunity at the supra-state body, like the case in other regions, may not work well within ASEAN context. The relative success of ASEAN to achieve its initial goal of maintaining peace and stability in the region amidst the violent ideological class is in fact owe much to its preference and adherence to the principles of non-intervention and consensus. Those principles and adherence to it have enabled the ASEAN to work whatever limited it might be amidst somehow distrustful constituent members. Stripping the ASEAN from these principles without necessary deliberation will draw resistance from most of its constituent members and thus greatly reduce the effectiveness of the policies it produces. The ASEAN may produce the policies on paper and claim it to be a regional policy, which all member states are obliged to follow accordingly. However, the government of the member states could just refuse to adopt and implement it based on the argument of their national interests and sovereignty.

on the argument of their national interests and sovereignty. The knowledge-based governance is an attempt to

The knowledge-based governance is an attempt to bridge the need for more effective regional body and policies by ensuring that the policies it produces come from, equally shared, and commonly agreed among the involved actors. Putting most of infrastructure for knowledge production and management at the domestic level will also facilitate the information and knowledge gathering and processing since it is closer to the sources. At this phase, the ASEAN serve the role to provide the arena and necessary infrastructures for policy coordination at the regional level and providing the general guiding principles for the would be, produced policies.

D. CONCLUSIONS: EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF KNOWLEDGE BASED BORDER GOVERNANCE AND SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ASEAN COMMUNITY

Border governance is still a major challenge even in the transformation of ASEAN into

a regional economic community, which renders a paradigm shift from hard-border to

soft-border. One of the major problem that constitute this issue as a challenge has been

the inclination to focus on the formal aspect of border governance and overlooking the

informal one. Most cases of border disputes among the ASEAN member states still

cases of border disputes among the ASEAN member states still circulate around the issues of territoriality

circulate around the issues of territoriality reflecting the rather conventional state-

dominated security approach on border governance in this region.

While the transformation of ASEAN from political association into a regional

community provides the opportunity for paradigm shift toward more people oriented

one, alongside with development in the academic and civil society discourses on border

governance and cross-border activities. Further attempts to operationalize these

concepts into workable mechanism are immediately needed.

Enlarging the scope of the existing knowledge based governance within the ASEAN

and its member states to include information and knowledge on the informal aspects

related to border governance is the immediate next step. Initial attempts have been made

to link the ASEAN and the government of its member states with non-state entities by

building collaborations and networks with academic communities and elements of the

civil society. However further thorough examination is required on how these

information and knowledge are further coordinated and used in policy making

processed both at the domestic and regional level.

Early indication, taking the case of awareness on ASEAN Community project among

Indonesian society; more specifically Yogyakarta, shows that this attempts has not been

fully maximized to make ASEAN to come with more sound policies. the idea of

ASEAN Community is not part of the common knowledge among the Indonesian

society in this region. It is ironic since Indonesia is one of the biggest stakeholder of

ASEAN and the ASEAN Community project.

Despite this shortcoming, developing the knowledge-based governance is a more viable and feasible way than merely investing more authority to the ASEAN as supra-state body. By focusing the development of this knowledge-based governance at the domestic level of each member states, as well as equipping the ASEAN member country with the necessary infrastructures to carry the role as facilitator for policy coordination and providing general direction, each of ASEAN’s member country would be more likely to come with a more sound and commonly accepted policies related to border governance or on other issues in general. Through this process, the policies produced under the umbrella of ASEAN Community will nurture the sense and awareness among communities of nation in this region as part of one larger regional community.

will nurture the sense and awareness among communities of nation in this region as part of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amer, Ramses, “Managing Border Disputes in Southeast Asia” in Kajian Malaysia, jilid XVIII, nos 1&2, 2000

Anderson, B.R.O.G., 2006, Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso, first published by Verso in 1983

Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel, 2005. “Theorizing Borders: An Interdisciplinary Perspective” in Geopolitics Journal, Vol. 10. Issue 4

,

2011.

“Special

Section:

Border,

Borderlands,

and

Theory:

an

Introduction” in Geopolitics Journal Vol. 16, Issue 1

2005. “Border Studies: Changing Perspectives and
2005.
“Border
Studies:
Changing
Perspectives
and

Vladimir.

Cheema, G. Shabbir; Christopher A. McNally; Vesselin Popovski (eds.). 2011, Cross Border Governance in Asia : Regional Issue and Mechanisms, Tokyo: United Nations University Press

Clouse, Thomas, “Thailand/Cambodia: Border Dispute and ASEAN’s Role” in Global Finance:

the Magazine, March 2011, https://www.gfmag.com/magazine/march-2011/thailand- cambodia-border-dispute-and-aseans-role, accessed 20 th July 2015

Lopa, Consuelo Katrina A., “CSOs’ Engagement with ASEAN: Perspectives and Learnings” in Pandey, Nischal N. and Kumar Shresta, 2012, Building Bridges and Promoting People to People Interaction in South Asia, Kathmandu: Centre for South Asian Studies (CSAS)

Kolossov,

Theoretical

Approaches” in Geopolitics Journal, Vol. 10. Issue 4

Kurlantzick, Joshua, 2012, ASEAN’s Future and Asian Integration, Working Paper, Council on Foreign Relations: International Institutions and Global Governance Program

Lay, Cornelis; Eric Hiariej; Endi Haryono; Erwin Endaryanta; Joash Tapiheru; Erik Triadi; Nella Puspitasari; Bedhah Adityo, 2013, Rethinking the Border: In Search

for Border Governance Concept, Research Report, Yogyakarta, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Gadjah Mada University

Mostov, Julie. 2008, Soft Border: Rethinking Sovereignty and Democracy, NY: Palgrave Macmillan

Sanak, Yohanes, 2012, Human Security dan Politik Perbatasan, Yogyakarta: PolGov-JPP UGM

Santoso, Purwo and Joash Tapiheru, Knowledge Based Governance for Transforming Resource Dependency to Sustainable Development, paper presented in the International Conference on ASEAN Studies-ICONAS, 2014, Yogyakarta

Strachan, Anna Louise, 2009, Resolving Southeast Asian Territorial Disputes: A Role for the ICJ, Southeast Asia Research Programme-SEARP, New Delhi: Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

Tapiheru, Joash and Primi S.P., 2014, Transnational Civic Engagement and Campaign for EITI in Southeast Asian Countries, paper presented in International Conference on ASEAN Studies-ICONAS 2014, Yogyakarta

Vaughn, Bruce and Wayne M. Morrisson, 2006, China-Southeast Asia Relations: Trend, Issues, and Implications for the United States, Congressional Research Service-CRS Report to Congress

Wicaksono, Ario; Desintha Asriani; Joash Tapiheru; Ezka Amalia, 2014, ASEAN Community and Sense of Ownership: Measuring Youth Perception and Orientation Towards ASEAN Community 2015, Case in City of Yogyakarta- Indonesia, Research Report, Yogyakarta: ASEAN Study Center, Gadjah Mada University

Yogyakarta: ASEAN Study Center, Gadjah Mada University Winanti, Poppy S. and Hasrul Hanif, 2014, Transnational

Winanti, Poppy S. and Hasrul Hanif, 2014, Transnational Advocacy for Advocating Governance Reform in Extractive Industries in Asean: Make Transparency Works, paper presented in International Conference on ASEAN Studies-ICONAS 2014, Yogyakarta