Ramos: The U.S. influence is still there because it’s still the No. 1 economic and military power. What is called for now is for each regional bloc to adjust to global developments. There is no stopping China in terms of her galloping economic growth, except for China’s own shortcomings in terms of resources, English-speaking people, and environmental protection. In India, the same constraints apply. In Japan, which is the No. 2 economic power in the world, her problems have to do with an aging population, small homeland area, and a culture that had favored the creation of a homogenous society, with a very strict immigration law. All of these have to be adjusted by the big powers. The same for the U.S., which is heavily committed to a peacekeeping role, and a self-assigned democratic regime change mission in Iraq.
Regime change would have been easy enough. But how do you put in democracy in a country like Iraq? We went through that experience ourselves. The U.S. military has invaded, occupied and administered only two countries in the world. One is Iraq and the other is the Philippines. And we here could speak with great authority. To establish democratic institutions, a democratically oriented people, and an overall culture of democracy and rule of law is very difficult if the effort is coming from the outside. It is most enduringly established if it is coming from among the people themselves.
That’s subject to many interpretations and answers. Until that charter is ratified by a majority of the countries in ASEAN, then the exact definition of democracy in Southeast Asia will remain undefined. But the quick answer is: yes, we have democracy in ASEAN with Southeast Asian characteristics.
The standards in the Philippines are a little more stringent than in other countries. Why? Every official who is a member of the village council here has to be elected. In many other countries in ASEAN, these are all appointed or inherited. You cannot put everybody in one mold.
We are submitting a report on our one year’s work. We made sure we consulted civil society, NGOs that advocate human rights, etc., parliamentarians, experts. ASEAN is still seen by some as a club made up of elite people, mainly officials and bureaucrats and diplomats. But now, ASEAN intends to be more people-centered. On the part of the Philippines, I recommended that, ultimately, ASEAN should go further to be one union. This is not to copy or replicate the EU. The EU has one overarching, integrating quality: the Christian religion. In Southeast Asia, we have a diversity of religions and ethnic origins and cultures, coming from our own indigenous beginnings, and from our colonial experiences. Europe is one vast compact continent while Southeast Asia is not. It’s going to be a little harder to create the union. But eventually, that is the ambition.
ASEAN must make sure that it does two things. First, integrate into a unified common market. Secondly, integrate into a common production base with efficiencies of scale built into it.
Consultation and consensus will still be the guiding procedures. But if necessary, depending on the sensitivity of the issue and the clamor of the people, a vote may be taken and therefore unanimity is no longer required. What will the vote consist of? A majority vote to impose a decision. Or a two-thirds vote. This is left to the high-level drafting committee to work out with the leaders.
That’s correct. That’s even putting it mildly.
It’s very difficult to make comparisons because I’ll just be blowing my own horn. Let me put it this way. The Philippines was seen as a booming economy, a tiger cub in a region already filled up with Southeast Asian tigers, during my time. My own method of developing unity was to meet with the representatives of the legislature weekly, predictably, and the private sector and we agreed [on] priorities for legislation. We had budget surpluses then.
