The discourse and behavior of states in modern-day Southeast Asia

By Olivia E Fernandez (2018)

Southeast Asia being composed of diverse cultures, government system and

beliefs also comprised of several “worldviews.” Worldview as defined by
Layador, is a perspective and serves as lens or framework to appreciate the
world and therefore influencing one’s action, relations and thought.
Accordingly, in comprehending Southeast Asian International System, it is
imperative to assess the historical overview (Confucianism and Islamism) and
the Mandala Ancient System of Southeast Asia.(Layador,2013)

As cited, Confucianism focuses on immediate life context and expands its

concerns outward in steadily widening concentric circle; Islamic worldview on
the other hand is conceived as cultural and not just plainly regional, wherein
some Muslims may be found taking anti-Western stance on some issues
specifically Wests’ role in the Middle East; and, the Mandala Ancient System
is perceived as a belief system and is said to be holistic pertaining to complex
interdependence, which reflects current international society and system.
(Ibid)

Hence, for this exercise, the above-signed chose Mandala Ancient System. In
my perception, from among the abovementioned worldviews, I strongly agree
with Lund’s elucidation and claim of mandalan concept in ASEAN context as
the best way to understand the discourse and behavior in modern-day
Southeast Asia. The most phenomenal situation and/or case that demonstrate
the same is the persistent impact of the continuing globalization in Southeast
Asia as also stated by Lund. Holistically, globalization in my perception covers
the other mirror events that Lund mentioned (Asian Financial Crisis, Haze
Problem and Problematic Admission of New Members) since it already
encompassed and affects the different facets of nation’s development
(political, economical, sociological, cultural and even environmental).

More so, it is in the advent of globalization that the ASEAN was founded, in
order for the member states to respond with its massive effects.(Lund,2003)
The interaction and collaboration among ASEAN countries and their relations
established outside the organization to include Western countries is a
manifestation of its application of the so-called mandalic community. Hence,
ASEAN in Southeast Asia continues to preserve its sustainability and
significance up to present times. (Ibid)

Idea of non-Western International Relations Theory

Reflecting on the given required readings and available online references, one
cannot move forward towards understanding and answering the question of
the existence of non-Western International Relations Theory without at least
construing the concept of International Relations Theory (IRT) per se. IRT are
ways to comprehend the world around us, through various lenses; serve as
map; and, can be seen as analytical toolkit, which provides methods in pursuit
to answer various questions. (McGlinchey, Stephen; Walters, Rosie &
Scheinpflug, Christian, 2017) However, IR theory is primarily based on
assumptions derived from Western modes of thinking and viewing the world.
(Yeophantong, 2017)

Connecting the IRT to non-Western specifically Southeast Asia, Layador

emphasized the historical views (Confucianism, Islamic and Mandala Ancient
System); the application of IRT in ASEAN and the existence of a focused
Asian IRT; and, ASEAN as studied by scholars. Accordingly, Southeast Asia
IRT is quite different with how it developed in the West. (Layador, 2013) An
accent of such was duly pointed with the Mandalic System, specifically with
the topic on the development of nation-states in SEA. (Ibid) Layador also
claimed that human rights and democracy facet that is being pushed by the
West is arduous to be accepted both philosophical and political due to the
different political system in Southeast Asia and ASEAN in particular. Lastly,
Layador underscored that as a whole, Euro-derived IRT are problematic when
applied to SEA.

The separate works of Kang and Acharya and Buzan’s complement Layador
claims. Consequently, Kang’s prerogatives are that using European IR
perspectives in addressing Asian IR issues will only be problematic as
mentioned by Layador, while focusing within Asia alone may also result to
essentializing the region. On the other hand, reflecting on Acharya’s paper,
Confucian and Islamic views are the perspectives that are put into practice.
Islam was put into the realm of geopolitics rather than an object of cultural
understanding. (Acharya and Buzan,2010) Thus, weighing these papers, in
my understanding, non-Western IR theory does not technically exist since
Asian societies see their ways of life more on the political aspect, hence,
observation of Confucianism, Islamism and Mandala. So in order to
conceptualize for a non-Western IR, theorist and students like I, there is a
need to have an in depth look on Asian Civilizations.

As Acharya is pushing with his “Global IR” perspective, he foresees IR as a

discipline with global foundations; more grounded on world rather than
Western history alone; IR that subsumes rather than supplants already
existing theories; gives center stage to regions (in our case, the ASEAN of
SEA); not based on cultural exceptionalism; and, takes a broad conception of
multiple broad agency. It is vital that scholars continue to work towards an
inclusive outlook that reconciles East and West, capturing both the diversity
and unity of insights to be gained from mainstream as well as Asian IR
perspectives. (Yeophantong, 2017)

REFERENCES:

Acharya, Amitav and Buzan, Barry, editors (2010) Non-Western International

Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia.

Acharya, Amitav, Towards a Global IR?, International Relations Theory, 2017.

Pp 76-82

Kang, David C. (David Chan-oong), Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New
Analytical Frameworks. International Security, Volume 27, Number 4, Spring
2003, pp. 57-85
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v027/27.4kang.pdf

Layador, Maria Anna Rowena Luz, Luhulima CPF and Mahiwo, Sylvano,
UPOU ASEAN Studies II, 2013, pp 3-42

Lund, Siska, A Mandala for the Southeast Asian International System. The
Culture Mandala, 6 No. 1, 2003. http://www.international-
relations.com/wbcm6-1/WbSiska.htm accessed 05 February 2019 20:25:10,

McGlinchey, Stephen; Walters, Rosie & Scheinpflug, Christian, International

Relations Theory, 2017.
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/BookDetail.aspx?bookId=544 accessed
09 February 2019 09:04:01

Yeaphantong, Pichamon, Asian Perspective, International Relations Theory,

2017. pp 117-124