Keynote address by Rodolfo C. Severino, Secretary-General
of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, at the ninth annual conference
of the Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations

Diversity and convergence. The theme chosen for this year’s conference challenged me to accept the invitation to take part in it. However, the ambition embedded in the sub-theme, “Resolving Asia’s Role in the Global Community,” is a bit too much for me. Asia is such a vast and varied continent. I would rather limit myself to Southeast Asia and to the concepts of diversity and convergence. It would be more manageable that way. A measure of convergence in Southeast Asia is more readily discernible amid its immense diversity. And I know a little bit about it.

Diversity and convergence. The subject is not only challenging; it is also timely, because today we may be at one of those moments in history when the tension between two seemingly opposite trends shapes the character of the relationships among people and groups of people.

Let me begin with the idea of convergence. It has now become obvious that the globalization of the economy and today’s breathtaking technological advances have brought a critical mass of the world’s people closer together in terms of physical accessibility, in terms of communication, in terms of commerce, in terms of ideas, in terms of culture. Goods and services flow much more freely. Money sloshes around the world with nary a barrier. People travel much faster and much more frequently. They are more in touch with one another. Events in one place in the world can have an impact almost everywhere else, at least on people’s knowledge and perception, if not on their lives. More and more people recognize, if not worship, the same cultural icons. Some diseases, too, spread much faster, and some crimes thumb their noses at national boundaries.

At the same time, the technological advances that have made such convergence possible are the products of extremely individual creativity. The global interaction of people is energized by and, in turn, stimulates a ferment of ideas in all their richness and diversity. The very efficacy of globalization and technology depends on the freedom of individuals to develop and share ideas, which cannot be separated from their freedom to live their own lifestyles and believe their own beliefs.

This much is obvious, then: the convergence of economies, of ideas and of cultures and the imperatives of individual freedom, of personal integrity and of human creativity.

How does this tension play out in Southeast Asia?

Let us examine the idea of convergence in Southeast Asia and its implications for diversity - in terms of geography, the economy, political systems and culture.

Convergence through geography, through the occupation of a specific geographic area, seems to be an obvious reality. Yet, what are now the countries of Southeast Asia were for centuries divided from one another by the designs of colonialism. Not that the old Southeast Asian kingdoms were always at peace with one another. Indeed, many wars were fought between them. But they interacted with one another, deeply influencing one another. Colonialism cut the political, economic and cultural ties among the peoples of Southeast Asia. History overpowered geography, although not completely, of course.

Even after they had gained their independence, the peoples of Southeast Asia continued to be divided, taking different paths in the transition from colonialism to independent nationhood. The historical relationship between colonizer and colonized, the personal experience and ideological leanings of the new ruling elite, and the economic and political circumstances in which the new nations found themselves influenced their choice of paths. Their choices also manifested themselves in the policies that they adopted with respect to Cold-War and other international issues, policy differences that exacerbated their mutual suspicions.

The colonial powers left unresolved, or had created, territorial, ethnic and economic issues that engendered an environment of dispute and suspicion between the new nations that emerged in Southeast Asia: between Indonesia and Malaysia, the Philippines and Malaysia, Singapore and Malaysia. Civil strife and proxy wars, in combination with historical animosities, continued to unsettle the Indochina region.

Out of this fractured region, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand decided to create, in August 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Burma, as it was then called, was invited but declined to join. Brunei Darussalam was admitted in 1984, upon its independence. ASEAN’s primary objective was to overcome the mutual isolation left behind by colonialism and to build a geographic entity that was at peace and cooperating for common purposes. Geography was to be the foundation of solidarity.

In the ensuing environment of peace, stability and cooperation, the economies of the ASEAN nations surged and flourished. The end of the Indochina wars and, later, the settlement of the Cambodian problem cleared the way for the membership of Viet Nam in 1995, and then of Laos and Myanmar in 1997, and finally of Cambodia in 1999. Thus, all ten Southeast Asian nations are now in ASEAN, realizing the vision of ASEAN’s founders, a vision explicitly set forth in the Bangkok Declaration of 1967.

Southeast Asia has fulfilled the destiny set for it by geography.

Geography, of course, is not enough, particularly in these days of rapid travel and instant communication, which are steadily reducing the importance of geographic proximity. From the beginning, ASEAN believed that a strong economic content in its geographic shell would not only directly benefit the people of Southeast Asia; it would also raise its members’ stake in the association and thus solidify their commitment to regional peace and cooperation.

ASEAN embarked on cooperative ventures in food, energy, industry, banking and finance, tourism, agriculture and forestry. It set up a system of preferential trading arrangements. It also instituted forums for cooperating on the environment, drugs, health, culture, and science and technology.

A quarter of a century after its founding, ASEAN’s members decided that economic cooperation was not enough. They had to integrate their markets if they were to achieve economies of scale, cut costs, raise productivity, and thus improve their competitiveness, attract investments and create jobs. The Western Europeans had recognized - and acted on - this notion much earlier, some countries forming a common market and others a free trade area. Other regional associations were to do the same, before or after ASEAN -- in North America, South America, Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Central Europe.

In 1992, ASEAN decided to create the ASEAN Free Trade Area, in which tariffs on trade within the region would be steadily reduced to no more than 0-5 percent by 2008. Quotas and other non-tariff barriers would also be removed. Pressed by the forces of globalization and the rise of competing integrating markets, ASEAN in 1995 advanced AFTA’s completion date to the beginning of 2003. In response to the financial turmoil that rocked the region in 1997 and 1998, ASEAN again accelerated the AFTA schedule, to the beginning of 2002, with the new members given a few more years.

This was, of course, contrary to the predictions of the “observers” whose instant comments are often invoked by the media. They speculated with some glee that the financial crisis would finish AFTA and that each ASEAN member would retreat into its own protectionist shell. The fact is that, instead, ASEAN’s leaders further hastened the AFTA process. Common sense told them that the restoration of investor confidence was essential to ensuring that the region’s economic recovery was sustained, and a more integrated ASEAN market, not a fragmented one, would draw in the necessary investments.

Today, a slight delay may have to be allowed for the inclusion in the AFTA program of automobile imports into one ASEAN country. Again, the “observers” are pointing to this as a sign that AFTA is breaking up. The fact, however, is that more than 85 percent of tariff lines, representing more than 90 percent of intra-ASEAN trade, are already in the AFTA scheme. There is no way to take them out again.

However, tariff-cutting is not enough. Competition is heating up. Global trade is being freed. Continental-scale markets are opening up and flexing their competitive muscles. Other regions are fast integrating their economies. ASEAN has to drop its non-tariff barriers fast. Trade must be made not only freer but also easier and cheaper. Customs procedures have to be streamlined and cleaned up. Product standards within ASEAN have to be harmonized. Air and maritime transport has to be liberalized. Other services have to be opened up. Infrastructure linkages - highway systems, railway lines, regional power grids, gas-pipeline networks - have to be put in place. Financial cooperation through an economic surveillance process and a currency swap arrangement is now high on the ASEAN agenda. ASEAN is turning its attention to all these measures for further economic integration.

More than market integration, ASEAN has recognized that its future competitiveness depends on its ability to develop and use technology. ASEAN knows that today the knowledge industries are both the arena of global competition and the weapons for succeeding in it. ASEAN knows that it has to pool its resources together, for no one country can do it alone, in acquiring the capacity to develop and use science and technology. It is paying particular attention to information and communications technology. Today, a combined task force of public and private-sector representatives are working on a program for the building of e-ASEAN, a set of recommendations for setting the legal and economic environment for the development and use of information and communications technology, developing the human resources for it, and identifying ways in which it can be used to good effect not only for business but for education, health care and rural development.

Will economic integration lead to political convergence?

In Western Europe, one can see the possibilities. The Western Europeans have the traditions and a set of values on which to base similar political systems or even a political union - liberal democracy, personal and social freedoms, freedom of expression and of the press, the independence of the judiciary, multi-party contests for leadership.

Most other regions in the world, including Southeast Asia, do not yet have such a common sets of values. Political systems and practices are shaped by history. To a large extent, they are the products of the cultural, economic and social dynamics within each nation. Their convergence cannot be decreed by some legal or diplomatic sleight-of-hand. However, to an increasing extent, external pressures are impelling changes in the political dynamics within nations. Those pressures are sparking internal forces to trigger evolutionary adjustments in the political system or even revolutionary upheavals, peaceful or not.

This could be one of those moments in history when radically new technologies and shifting global economic relationships are bringing about drastic changes in countries’ internal arrangements. For example, regional economic integration, such as that taking place in ASEAN, demands that regional economic arrangements be increasingly rules-based and that the formulation and application of laws and rules affecting those arrangements be harmonized to some extent and, therefore, more transparent. Impartial adjudicating mechanisms are increasingly necessary, at both the regional and national levels. The drive for investments, on the part of ASEAN and of each individual member, reinforces these demands. ASEAN’s embrace of information and communications technology obviously requires individual creativity, freedom of thought and expression, and untrammeled communications.

Political diversity is inevitable, necessary, even desirable. But in the light of globalization and regional economic integration, in the face of global competition for markets and investments, some political convergence will have to take place, within Southeast Asia and elsewhere, and it will likely be in the direction of greater openness, greater freedom, and greater pluralism. It will proceed at different paces, and political diversity will remain. But the direction is emerging into view.

Globalization and the technological revolution will also have a significant impact on the diversity and convergence of cultures.

We can take culture in its two meanings. The first meaning encompasses a people’s lifestyle, folkways, traditions, art, literature, dance, music and so on. Culture by this definition has to be preserved, nurtured and enriched. It links people to the origins of who and what they are. It is what binds them together. It gives them their identity beyond the family. It is the source of their sense of self-worth. It imparts meaning to their lives. The diversity of people’s cultures and the interaction among them enrich the human race.

Culture has another meaning. It comprehends a people’s set of values and attitudes, their outlook on life, their ways of thinking and working, their mindsets. It is people’s cultures in this sense that globalization and technology are disrupting. In this sense, cultures have to adjust in order for people and nations and regions to be competitive in the global economy. If science and technology, especially information and communications technology and biotechnology, are the arena and weapons for global competition, nations and companies have to undertake a massive re-allocation of resources to education, training, research and development, and the infrastructure for the knowledge industries. National and corporate priorities have to be reset. Legal assumptions and institutional arrangements have to be re-examined. Just as importantly, people’s mindsets have to change. They have to acquire a scientific bent, develop a certain rigor in their thinking, and cultivate the capacity and inclination to turn knowledge into practical applications. People have to develop the willingness to question knowledge that is handed down and challenge intellectual authority - and be allowed to do so. Personal relationships have to be tempered by the objective application of law and rules in the conduct of government and business. In sum, the proverbial paradigm shift must take place.

In Southeast Asia, there are signs that the financial crisis has jolted governments, institutions and people into the beginnings of such a shift.

Not least, if it is increasingly true that these days most nations can compete effectively only through integrated regional economies, then people have to cultivate rapidly a sense of regional identity. This is necessary if people and nations are to identify their welfare with the regional interest, and if they are willingly to subordinate traditional national prerogatives to regional arrangements. They have to see regional integration and regional cooperation as benefiting them. For most people, this requires a whole new mindset that, in Southeast Asia at least, has not yet been achieved.

People and nations are, to a large extent, prisoners of their history, traditions and culture. Not only that; cultural, political and individual diversity is essential and something to be cherished. But in the economy, in politics and in culture, the forces of globalization and technology are impelling a certain convergence globally, regionally and nationally. In many important ways economies, political systems, and cultural traits must change in response to the challenges of globalization and technology, inevitably converging at many points.

The person, the nation, the region that maintains the right balance between diversity and convergence - which, necessarily, must keep shifting - will be the one that finds success in a globally competitive world.