Ten years ago, Surin, as the newly anointed foreign minister of a country that was the first to fall under the sweeping tide of the Asian financial crisis, made a bold effort to reform and revitalise Asean. He particularly targeted Asean's non-interference doctrine, which in his view made the grouping unable to discuss and address regional crises caused by domestic situations in, and policies adopted by, members (in this case the economic policies of his own country under the previous government). Drawing partly from an idea called "constructive intervention" proposed by former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim to deal with internal political crises in Cambodia (in 1997) and Burma (since 1989), Surin at the Asean ministerial meeting in Manila held in July 1999, called for the organisation to change its mind-set from non-interference to "flexible engagement". The idea was not to abandon sovereignty. That would have been, in his view, dangerous and unacceptable. But what he had in mind was for Asean to come forward to deal with problems which may arise from within the boundaries of a member state, but whose effects may encompass its neighbours and the entire region. Asean, in Surin's view, should not shy away from dealing with such issues by hiding behind the principle of non-interference. Flexible engagement was about open and frank discussion about such issues, leading to cooperative solutions - a pooling of sovereignty rather than its dilution, so as to make Southeast Asia a secure and prosperous region.

Surin's idea encountered opposition from some of his more tradition-bound colleagues, including the foreign ministers of Indonesia and Singapore, who feared that diluting the sacred mantra of non-interference could tear Asean apart. In the end, Ali Alatas, then Indonesia's foreign minister, came up with the term "enhanced interaction"; but for the most part, it has been a forgotten idea backed by no active institutional mechanisms.

Yet, Surin's proposal did not die away. Time and events have borne him out. With the democratic transition in Indonesia, the idea of flexible engagement has found powerful support from within Asean, whereas previously Surin was criticised for being too Western-oriented in his post-Westphalian mindset. Indonesia's own idea of an Asean Security Community, at least in its initial form, called for a number of policy instruments that would make Asean more responsive to the transnational challenges facing Southeast Asia and make the grouping more open to the promotion of human rights and democracy.

And therein lies one of the most important questions facing Asean. Despite facing many challenges since its foundation, Asean has proven that it's a durable regional entity. But is it effective in dealing with the challenges it faces today? One thing is certain; challenges Asean faces today are far more complex than the situation which accompanied its birth 40 years ago. Then the world was divided into two geopolitical blocs and the main security threats facing Asean members came in the form of insurgencies or interstate conflicts. The main concern of the nascent regional grouping was the protection of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. In today's world, the challenges facing Asean are transnational in nature. They may arise from within the boundaries of one state, but have a rapid spill over effect affecting an entire region or the world. Recent examples of this include the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Sars epidemic in 2003, the Jemaah Islamiah challenge in Southeast Asia, and the dangerously unhealthy pollution caused by forest fires in Indonesia a few weeks ago. While state sovereignty is still important and must be guarded against outside pressure or encroachment, it is no longer possible to adhere to a strict understanding of the non-interference doctrine if Asean is to be serious about addressing these transnational problems.

Today, Asean is more and more engaged in addressing transnational problems: witness its willingness to talk to the government of Burma about its internal political situation, and its rapid response to the outbreak of Sars and the Indian Ocean tsunami.

The current effort to draft an Asean Charter could further enhance Asean's ability to deal with transnational problems. But the Charter, in order to be credible and meaningful, must find ways to allow member states to set aside traditional concerns about state sovereignty and seriously engage in dispute-settlement and problem solving. It must provide concrete mechanisms for conflict-resolution, and specify ways in which Asean can use its existing instruments, such as the Asean Troika, for rapid reaction to unfolding regional crises.

Asean is finally waking up to the need for flexible engagement. But as a working group on the Asean Charter, organised by the Asian Dialogue Society (ADS), of which Surin himself is a leading member, contends, much remains to be done. Asean's response to the recent haze over Southeast Asia left much to be desired. Such disasters are entirely preventable through concerted regional action, and must not be allowed to happen again. Indonesian rain forests are not just a national heritage, but also a regional public good. Just as Indonesia is proud to "provide oxygen" to its neighbours, it should also be prepared to seek and receive help in preventing the transmission of dangerous toxins that spread through the sustained haze.

The fight against terror has brought Asean members together, yet, multilateral cooperation has proven to be difficult due to political sensitivities and conflicts.

To be effective, the Asean Charter must chart a new course in Southeast Asian regionalism. It must combine the traditional focus of Asean members on national security with a new emphasis on human security. Surin called for a "peoples' Asean" to offset the grouping's elitist character. There is still no consensus in Asean as to how to deal with human rights issues in the region. Asean members face humanitarian crises on an almost daily basis, but a regional humanitarian assistance mechanism is yet to be formalised. The Asean Charter must offer more space for the voices of its people, rather than its elites. And it must come to the conclusion that sovereignty today is a changing concept, and must not be allowed to stand in the way of cooperative action which will benefit both its individual member states and the community as a whole.

Amitav Acharya

Special to The Nation

Singapore

Amitav Acharya is a professor of international relations at Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies and is a member of the Asian Dialogue Society.