Регионы в современном мире: глобализация и Азия. Зарубежное регионоведение. Коллектив авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Ключевые слова: АСЕАН, цифровизация, безопасность, азиатско-тихоокеанское многостороннее сотрудничество, инициатива Пояса и Пути, Индо-Тихоокеанский регион, Россия.

      As scholars review ASEAN’s performance, as well as predict likely trends of its future development, the association’s response to the challenges presented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution becomes crucial. Assessing ASEAN’s pre-digital achievements as the foundation of its response to the emerging digital challenges, the authors specify the association’s current and prospective readiness to effectively cope with them. As distinguished from numerous writings on the aftereffects of the Fourth Industrial Revolution for ASEAN, the central argument of the chapter is as follows. The key vulnerability of ASEAN’s policy is the overlap of the long-standing and present ASEAN’s shortcomings as the central reason behind its insufficient preparedness to face the digital challenges rather than the seriousness of these problems per se. The academic novelty of the research comes from distinguishing an appropriate remedy to decrease this vulnerability.

      The actuality and the academic significance of the research stem from the authors’ identification and analysis of issues critical for ASEAN’s future evolution. Among these issues, the pivotal are prospects for the association to lose its digital sovereignty as a result of the intensifying Sino-American contradictions over the digital issues, the emergence of new imbalances between and within Southeast Asian states with negative implications for the ASEAN Economic Community. The aftereffects of the on-going digitalization of economic exchanges for ASEAN’s multilateral dialogue platforms and initiatives in the economic and political-security sphere. The authors’ findings on this set of issues, as well as their assessment, determine the academic originality of the paper.

      Keywords: ASEAN, digitalization, security, Asia-Pacific multilateralism, Belt and Road Initiative, Indo-Pacific region, Russia.

      Introduction

      The new period of globalization marked by an exponential increase of information flows with the concomitant benefits and challenges presents the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) with serious policy dilemmas. By its very definition, the “brave digital world” can expand ASEAN’s possibilities to maintain the presently respectable rates of economic growth by exploring its new sources. But a deeper insight suggests that the same developments may well give the association strong reasons for concern rather than for optimism.

      As the 2020 marks the year of realization of the ASEAN ICT Master-Plan and the middle point of ASEAN’s journey between the ASEAN Community to 2015 and to 2025, in which the digital competitiveness is given special significance, an interim assessment of what the “brave digital world” means for the association is a timely and relevant exercise.

      Asean in the Pre-Digital Era: What Was and Was Not Achieved

      Declaring that in the realization of ASEAN’s prospective plans to increase its digital competitiveness the previously developed foundation is an important prerequisite, the ups and downs of ASEAN’s digital journey will be assessed from this starting point.

      Regarding ASEAN’s real achievements, the establishment of the ASEAN Community is of special significance. The importance of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) as part of the ASEAN Community project hardly stems from the advantages of the AEC itself as much work remains to be done even to make Southeast Asia a single market and a single production base as just one of the components of AEC to 2015, not to say about realizing the more ambitious goals of AEC to 2025. A more important factor is the weakness of other Asia-Pacific multilateral dialogue formats and initiatives, be it APEC, CPTPP or even the ASEAN-led prospective RCEP. As long as their prospects remain unclear, the AEC will remain the only de-facto existing multilateral initiative with relatively clear rules of cooperation.

      No less significant ASEAN’s asset is its political-security brainchild with positive economic aftereffects. Having developed the cooperative security system in the Asia-Pacific region – exemplified by the ASEAN Regional Forum, the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus Eight and the East Asia Summit, – the Association has strengthened its credentials as a respectful Asia-Pacific actor. This allows the association to maintain a relatively peaceful international milieu in Southeast Asia contributing to its economic and investment competitiveness.

      Lastly but perhaps most importantly, the history of ASEAN amply demonstrates how an international actor can benefit from the virtues of the evolutionary regional order by fostering international cooperation premised upon inclusivity and neutrality. The most important competitive advantage of ASEAN is its ability to bring to the Asia-Pacific region the inclusive and neutral mode of cooperation. The latter is an important strategic asset that is behind the present relative insulation of the Asia-Pacific region from the unfolding “global entropy”, which to a considerable extent has been made possible by the ASEAN-led institutions.

      While the afore-discussed ASEAN’s advantages are indisputable, its points of its vulnerability are no less serious.

      Arguably, the most potentially dangerous threat is ASEAN’s inability to create safety mechanisms against the negative aftereffects of globalization. The flows of capital are hampered by international sanctions, the free movement of people is accompanied by illegal migration, the information flows go hand-in-hand with the spread of fake news. In its turn, ASEAN lacks both institutional mechanisms for collective action and the capacities of its member states to manage these challenges.

      With ASEAN’s pronounced intention to strengthen its influence on the global development, the global processes demonstrate the same characteristics the association has been trying to eliminate in the Asia-Pacific region since the ASEAN-led cooperative security system was established. In the global realm, long-term and mutually beneficial projects are regularly sacrificed for the sake of short-term minor political profit – suffice it to mention implications of the anti-Russian sanctions for Russia’s partners. From the ASEAN perspective, examples of the damage the anti-Russian sanctions inflict on the states of Southeast Asia are numerous40. On the whole, the ASEAN leaders disapprove of the present sanction-countersanction vicious circle exemplified mostly by China-US trade contradictions

      The association is beset with the simultaneous rise of traditional and non-traditional security challenges in global politics. Their Asia-Pacific aftereffects are exemplified, among other developments, by systemic escalations of North Korea’s nuclear and missile issue and the rise of ISIS threat in Southeast Asia. As long as the former is unresolved, for ASEAN the establishment of the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in Southeast Asia remains a remote possibility. Regarding the latter, the ISIS is expanding its activity from the Middle East to other regions, among which Southeast Asia with its large Muslim population, deep-rooted separatist sentiments and indigenous groups linking separatism and terrorism, is a perfect destination. The Russian top military officials, including the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, assess the threat of terrorism in Southeast Asia as both real and growing41.

      In this complicated context, the association СКАЧАТЬ