- 著者
-
村井 吉敬
- 出版者
- JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
- 雑誌
- 国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.1984, no.77, pp.89-109,L8, 1984-09-29 (Released:2010-09-01)
- 参考文献数
- 58
The short history of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) has the reputation of being a case of “successful” regional co-operation in Southeast Asia in spite of a pessimistic prospect in its initial stage. However its “success” of solidarity was attained simply as a result of external pressures, namely the American defeat in Indochina and the regional tension arising from the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea. Except for this kind of regional “solidarity” mainly arising out of common fear of the Soviet “threat”, it might be said that ASEAN could not bring about solid results.This article aims to discuss the difficulties not only of regional integration in Southeast Asia but also of national integration in each country. Indonesia, a major member country of ASEAN, is characterized by its ethnic, religious and historical diversity. This nation also has a center and periphery in terms of social class and locality. This structure of center-periphery is analyzed mainly from the standpoint of one Indonesian local society; Sunda (West Java) World. The national integration of Indonesia from above after independence sometimes brought a process of depriviation of local identity and the oppression of the locality and local people.After the establishment of ASEAN it might be possible to say that authoritarian repressive integration through, “development” has been legitimized on the grounds of strengthening “regional co-operation” or fostering “regional peace.” But, at the same time, when we look at this integration process from the perspective of the vast majority of people, it is hard to say that the situation of their life, safety and justice has been much improved.It might be concluded that ASEAN is now functioning as a kind of sub-metropole of the world capitalistic system when we consider ASEAN's economic and sometimes military dependence upon the U. S., Japan and the EC. Nevertheless we should seek the common interest of Southeast Asian people from the standpoint of their peripheral situation in the world.