Not many in Malaysia are perhaps aware that Asean leaders are meeting in Hanoi this week to discuss a very important issue, ie connectivity.

Unlike the European Union that rose from the ashes of catastrophic wars to become the world’s most vibrant and closely connected regional bloc, Asean member states do not see eye-to-eye on a host of issues.

NONE Historical disputes, for one, continue to haunt bilateral or even multilateral relations. Recently, Malaysians were shocked to witness Indonesians, led by Kumpulan Benteng Demokrasi Rakyat (People’s Bastion for Democracy, or Bendera), lob faeces into the Malaysian embassy’s compound in Jakarta.

Prior to that, the two countries had been embroiled in feuds over national heritage and culture. Back in the 1960s, Konfrontasi cast a dark cloud over the survival of the newly-formed Malaysia.

As Joseph Chinyong Liow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies writes in his seminal book The Politics of Indonesia-Malaysia Relations , while these frictions seem modern, they are nevertheless rooted in the dynastic rivalries among the various ethnic groups in Nusantara in the pre-colonial days. Javanese dominance, in particular, remains lurking in the background.

NONE This aside, Singapore and Malaysia are yet to ditch their historical baggage to make the bilateral relations truly meaningful, while Thailand and Cambodia nearly went to war over the territory around the Preah Vihear temple .

All this points to a dilemma confronting Asean countries: as nation-states jealously guarding their sovereignty, how is the regional grouping supposed to push for freedom of movement and greater integration?

Within the EU, the largest economies, ie Germany, Britain and France, offer abundant job opportunities for smaller and newly-joined members such as Poland and Hungary. This is not the case as far as Asean is concerned, because Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines, the three most populous countries, are relatively poor.

Opening up job markets and permitting greater freedom of movement will only result in Indonesians, Filipinos and Vietnamese ‘swarming up’ the more prosperous economies.

Malaysians would be gravely concerned by such a scenario, while Singapore, being the only developed nation in the region, would welcome foreign experts and specialists but look askance at unskilled labourers from Malaysia at the same time, not to mention the delicate task of dealing with the junta in Burma, the much-touted democratic elections on Nov 7 notwithstanding.

Concentrating on existing trade pacts

Which is why Asean in the coming decade will mostly concentrate on strengthening the existing agreements to facilitate trade in goods and services, rather than hanging on to an elusive vision of an integrated community.

asean and economy and shipping and manufacturing With China, India and other economic challenges in the offing, making Asean a viable and strong trade bloc is key to ensuring its future prosperity, although one can never rule out the possibilities of bigger economies such as Indonesia and Vietnam outpacing the rest in the decades to come.

Still, the various disputes involving the member states, ranging from the Spratly islands and the safety of the Malacca Straits to energy competition, have made it possible for other powers to play a significant role. Some Asean countries, including Singapore and Thailand, are even openly well-disposed to the presence of the United States in the region, much to the chagrin of China.

The US, the architect of the security arrangements in Asean in its early days, would naturally see to it that its interests remain intact despite the vastly changed geopolitical landscape, while China insists on the member states assuming the dominant role so as to minimise the influence of the new players.

Asean’s values lie in its strategic location. It encompasses the vitally important Malacca Straits, the world’s busiest sea lane, and the resource-rich South China Sea, making it a theatre of intense international diplomacy and rivalry. The US is now ready to bring in India to shore up its bargaining chip, and China is likely to team up with Russia to ensure no one major power is in a position to hijack Asean’s common agenda at its expense.

Both Beijing and Moscow have successfully taken the wind out of America’s sails in Central Asia. Granted, the same framework cannot be repeated in South-East Asia, but both governments are no doubt eager to see more neutrality demonstrated by Asean nonetheless.

Battleground in war on terror

Furthermore, South-East Asia is a major battleground in the war against terrorism, and this is perhaps the only challenge that serves to unite the outsiders. After all, America, China, India and Russia have all been victims of terrorist attacks over the last decade, a reality that compels them to work more closely in spite of their respective geopolitical blueprints in the region.

Asean leaders have now an unenviable job to fulfill their hopes for a connected region. To achieve that, they must bear in mind that the plans must not be derailed by the potentially explosive issues among them. Relying on outsiders to keep these disputes in check is an option, but sooner or later, the region has to decide what kind of a community it would want to be. By then, the shadows of these powers may have grown perhaps too large to be ignored.

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.