Conflict Management And ASEAN's Construction Of Regional Norms

In the study of World Politics, power and norm which based on different ontology form a pair of antinomies. Realism considers power and benefit to be decisive factors, with the others being subordinate. On the contrary, Constrictivism believes that power could operate only through idea, although the factor of power is important. But in the other hand, the incommensurability between different academic paradigms is out of accord with the practice in international relations. From ASEAN's intervening in the management of Cambodian Problem, it can be seen that the discourses of power and norm are all important means of action for states or international organizations, each one should not supersede the other.ASEAN as a regionalistic organization which aimed at regional peace and development, its establishment stemmed in large part from the regional conflict management among the five founder nations. There were many measures for the inter-national conflict management, such as leaguer establishment, regionalism and market integration, but regional integration became a optimal option of five founder nations for regional stabilization and their institutional security. Based on "shared ideas" of which economic, social and cultural co-prosperity being the groundwork of regional peace and stabilization, ASEAN was identified in non-political, non-military cooperation. This identification has a definite political intention: protect the sovereignty and independence, keep away the communist subversion, and then struggle for the dominant status in regional affairs.In order to harmonize different benefits and then manage regional conflicts peacefully among member states, ASEAN had established a series of behavioral norms. It include not only the promissory legal-rational norms which should be abode in international community and appeared in statute forms, but also the un-promissory social-cultural norms which based on special development level in ASEAN member states. Because of the historical and contemporary circumstances, there was a disposition of absolutization in ASEAN's understanding of the legal-rational norms, such as the principles of "noninterference in internal affairs" and "non-military cooperation". As a informal behavioral norm and decision-making regime, the "ASEAN Way" was also resulted in the sensitivity to sovereignty of its members. For these reasons, ASEAN was not characterized by sovereignty transfer to constitute its identity of regional integration.The third Indochina War and its chain-reacting challenged ASEAN's norms about "sovereign equality", "peacefully conflict resolution" and "noninterference in internal affairs". The war was actually stemmed in the struggle for predomination and anti-predomination between the two nation and their communist parties, Communist Party of Kampuchea and Vietnam Communist Party. The war reflected the great difference about regionalism of Vietnam and ASEAN, and also indicated the latter's failure to diffuse ASEAN's regional norms. Furthermore, fore-and-aft this war, great powers got a chance to intervene in Southeast Asia affairs, then endangered ASEAN's ideal for "Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality" and "One Southeast Asia". Among others, the influx of refugee and conflict in Thai-Cambodian border endangered the stabilization, security and solidarity of ASEAN's member states.Despite of the intolerable harm which resulted in Vietnamese aggression, ASEAN's identity confined its action to the conflict management aimed at resume peace in Cambodia, the measure consist of dialogue, communication, mobilization in international community, economic sanction and diplomatic confrontation, etc. But how to evaluate this aggression and how to resolve the Cambodian Problem by political means, there are different views in ASEAN. Embodying the flexibility in "ASEAN Way", "double track" policy stuck to ASEAN's principle of "speak with one voice" as a collectivity in one hand, it also created an atmosphere for communication among factions in Vietnam-Cambodian conflict in the other hand, and this policy got no achievement because of the great gulf between each factions. 1986 and after see a significant transformation in ASEAN's policy towards Cambodian Problem, in which Vietnamese benefits and the puppet government in Cambodia got admitted, at the same time, Vietnam took a policy inclining to economic development. By ASEAN's communication and mediate, the factions in Cambodian Problem entranced into the arena of dialogue based on the foundation of "shared discourse" and every factions' compromise. At the time the third Indochina War went to end, there saw a disposition for Vietnam to accept ASEAN's regional norms.Value and norm were both significant in interaction among member states of ASEAN and among ASEAN and Vietnam, but it's not all for resolving the Cambodian Problem through political ways. ASEAN could not neglect the existence of great power in any sixty-four-dollar question in Southeast Asia. Except diplomatic struggle for a conflict resolution according with ASEAN's regional norms, ASEAN should impel great powers to press every faction in conflict to get a compromise. Despite the different views and measures, every member states and ASEAN itself could do very little to mobilize the great power. As to the end of the conflict, ASEAN's efforts were very important, but it was also an outcome of game between powers.It could be seen in ASEAN's conflict management in the third Indochina War that ASEAN's norms had different effect in different level of conflict, it had successfully controlled bilateral conflicts among member states. As to conflicts with and among external actors, ASEAN could not but appealed to substantial powers.To sum up, norm was an important factor in the multi-discourse framework of international politics, but it was power which gives a crucial and final function. In order to resolve the Cambodian Problem, ASEAN's took material or immaterial measures according to circumstances in the conflict management. This proved that there are many distinctions between diplomatic decision-making and doctrinal research about norm and power. Which factor should be assorted to, power or norm, depends on the context in which leaders pursue the ideal of one's country or of some league.