Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership as ASEAN’s Priority in the Establishment of ASEAN Community

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

The Government of the Russian Federation

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education

“National Research University Higher School of Economics”

Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs

GRADUATION THESIS

Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership as ASEAN's Priority in the Establishment of ASEAN Community

Educational program “European and Asian Studies”

Paderina Sofya Alexandrovna

Academic advisor: Kanaev Evgeny Aleksandrovich

Doctor of Sciences in Historical Sciences and Archaeology,

Moscow, 2020

Contents

Introduction

1. Theoretical framework of the research

2. The phenomenin of ASEAN Community

2.1 History and features

2.2 ASEAN Political-Security Community

2.3 ASEAN Economic Community

2.4 ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community

2.5 Conclusion

3. Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership

3.1 Historical context and interim results

3.2 Russia's goals and challenges in Southeast Asia

3.3 More areas for cooperation

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The system of international relations is not static. The world for a long time had been living under the conditions of bipolar rivalry of the United States and the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the last one the only hegemon remained. However, recently new rising powers like China or India emerged in Asia seeking for more influence on international relations. The Association of Southeast Nations also intends to play a proactive role in the world arena, advocating for the regional integration and common prosperity. ASEAN tries to engage in the cooperation the great powers as well, at the same time preserving its central role in the processes.

The Association also forms strategic partnerships with its key dialogue partners. In 2018 such partnership was signed with Russia. Although at the first glance it could seem to lack the depth and substantial content, the cooperation between Russia and ASEAN on such high level involves qualitatively increasing and quantitatively expanding scope of areas and provides new opportunities for both sides.

The relevance of the research topic has global, regional and national dimensions. On global level, robust integration of ASEAN with Russia's participation may foster ongoing world structure's reshaping when the Asian countries are becoming more active and important actors of international political and economic systems, the hegemonic behaviour of the United States as well as possible expansionist intensions of rising China could be balanced by other mighty actors.

On regional dimension, on the one hand, the Asia Pacific region risks to become the arena of rivalry of such great powers as the US and China, which have strategic interests in this region developing their own megaprojects. ASEAN promoting its own integration megaproject of ASEAN Community, attracting the neighbor-states and great powers as well, and aspiring to be the independent, indivisible and successful player, need a kind of `guarantor' which could help the Association preserve its independence and centrality, overcoming the emerging challenges of different sorts. For example, ASEAN by means of cooperation with Russia could upgrade its opportunities in strategic hi-tech sectors.

In the context of the proclaimed Russia's `Pivot to the East' there is a vivid basic necessity to occupy the niche in the regional structure as well as diversify its ties to benefit from the new policy. On national level, having the need to modernize the economy and being under the sanctions of the Western countries Russian Federation seeks for new partners and resources of innovations in different areas. ASEAN countries, for their part, also experience the need not only to further integrate with each other, but also to diversify their ties with great powers in search of new opportunities to ensure security and facilitate economic growth.

In these conditions, Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership could submit new experience and practices to both sides as well as provide new opportunities for business.

The object of the research is the megaproject of ASEAN Community with its strategic goals and main challenges.

The subject will be defined as Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership as the contributing factor of building ASEAN Community.

The hypothesis lies in the thesis that cooperation with Russia could facilitate capacity-building within ASEAN: despite weak economic relations, Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership enables the Association to upgrade a number of technologically sophisticated sectors - cyber security and information technologies on the whole, hi-tech, energy security and space exploration. As a consequence ASEAN would be able to develop the project of ASEAN Community as an independent actor that is building relations with other dialogue partners on the fundamentally different basis, in other words, not falling into dependence in the strategic spheres. In this context, upgrading core aforementioned areas by the means of developing ties with Russia could contribute to sovereignty and security of ASEAN.

The research question is how Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership can help to achieve the goal of ASEAN Community and resolve its strategic questions. Through which particular directions, measures and mechanisms it can be done meeting also the intended objectives of the cooperation.

The aim of the research is to identify the extent to which and areas where cooperation with Russia contributes to the Association with the view of the development of ASEAN Community.

The objectives:

1. To identify the most suitable theory of international relations as the theoretical basis for analyzing the current state of the development of ASEAN Community and ASEAN-Russia Strategic Partnership in relation to it, as there is no given `Asian' theory explaining and considering the specificity of international relations in the Asia Pacific region;

2. To analyze the contemporary stage of the development of ASEAN Community, outline its strategic goals and nowadays challenges;

3. To analyze present Russia-ASEAN relations in the framework of strategic partnership and identify most prosperous areas and aspects of cooperation as well as the obstacles for it posed by the exogenous factors;

4. To elaborate set of the most promising directions and features of relations between Russia and ASEAN as regards ASEAN Community, giving them an assessment and predictions.

Chronological framework is defined by mid1990s-2020, as the relations of Russia with the Association as a whole started with the Full Dialogue Partnership between Russia and ASEAN signed in 1996. In 1997 ASEAN adopted ASEAN VISION 2020 calling for establishment of three communities which laid foundation for the future megaproject of ASEAN Community.

As the basic theory is chosen structural realism focusing on the specificities of structure, which has a significant influence on the international relations in the Asia Pacific region. The chosen theory takes into consideration the distribution of capabilities among the actors of the system, operating such concepts as “balance of power”, “balancing”, “revisionist intentions”, “relative and absolute gains”, etc.

The methodology of scientific research can be divided into two groups. Methods of theoretical research are as follows: analysis allows scrutinizing the existing theories of international relations and outlining the most applicable to the research patterns; synthesis enables researcher to establish a holistic approach; deduction and induction.

To conduct empirical research can be applied the following methods: process tracing/ historical method to track the evolution of ASEAN Community and the development of relations between ASEAN and Russia; SWOT analysis to analyse Russia's opportunities and challenges for the integration into the regional international relations and to scrutinize the ASEAN Community considering both internal and external factors; PEST analysis helps to conduct the comprehensive exploration of ASEAN Community and examine ASEAN-Russia partnership applying the method in the internal dimension; event analysis and content analysis (analysis of official document and related literature); systematization works for the elaboration of the conclusions.

The empirical basis is rather broad and diverse. It comprises of several blocks of sources published in English and Russian. The first group of sources covers the official documents defining the ASEAN Community in multiple aspects: declarations, blueprints, plans, programmes of ASEAN Secretariat and Working Groups on different issues. The analysis of these documents allows to trace the dynamics and priorities of the cooperation and integration among ASEAN member states. The second part of this block includes the documents adopted within the framework of ASEAN-Russia partnership, like Joint Statement of the 3rd ASEAN-Russian Federation Summit on Strategic Partnership. They enable us to define the key features of the relations.

The second set is represented by the official speeches and statements of the state leaders, government officials and main stakeholders which may help to understand the priorities of cooperation, intentions of states and make predictions for the future. However, one should be careful and not fully rely on such sources due to their subjective nature.

The third block includes statistical data, surveys, ratings of such institutions as SIPRI, the World Bank, Doing Business, Global Findex Database, Institute for Economics and Peace (Global Terrorism Index), International Telecommunication Union (Global Cybersecurity Index), Statista, etc. The analysis of these recourses provides the researcher the data that could help to conduct comparative analysis and prove the hypotheses.

The resources of the fourth group are the materials from media from ASEAN countries and Russia: TASS news agency, RIA novosti, the ASEAN Post, Bangkok Post, Nikkei Asian Review, etc. They allow to conduct event analysis, identify permanent and variable features, explore the evolution of the matter.

Describing the degree of scientific elaboration of the research matter, one should point out the absence of the particular theory or scientific school appropriate for the comprehensive and adequate analysis of the international relations in Asia, including the Asia Pacific region. Thereby to consider the whole range of the issues scrutinized in the given research the author uses the wide range of literature resources, which depend on the chapters and analyzed issues. To establish the theoretical frameworks of the study author appeals to the works of such prominent theorists as K. Waltz Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill., R. O. Keohane Keohane. R. O. (1986). Neorealism and its critics. New York: Columbia University Press. and J. S. Nye Keohane. R.O., Nye. J.S. (2001). Power and Interdependence. New York: Longman., etc. Working on the second and third chapters about ASEAN Community and ASEAN-Russia Strategic partnership were used monographs, e.g. one of Russia's researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences G. M. Lokshin, E. V. Kobelev and V.M. Mazyrin Lokshin, Kobelev and Mazyrin. (2019). ASEAN Community in the modern world. Moscow. Forum. 296p., exploring wide scope of issues including ASEAN Community and ASEAN-Russia partnership; most informative articles and analytical materials of the researchers from MGIMO University, Higher School of Economics, Russian International Affairs Council, ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, CSIS, ERIA such as E. Kanaev, V. Sumsky, E. Koldunova, A. Korolev, A. Tsvetov, A.A. Rogozhin, E. M. Afanasyeva, A. Acharya, I. Storey, T. Akaha, etc.

Summing up the examined material it can be noted that there is an extensive number of works studying different aspects of ASEAN as it is, whereas the extent of knowledge of ASEAN Community leaves much to be desired. The scope of the research regarding ASEAN-Russia relations is limited to the study of several areas of interaction like energy, trade and security in terms of military-technical cooperation, and pays little attention to other possible directions of cooperation. Most of the works are focused either on the ASEAN Community, or on the Partnership, that is examining them separately. It is hard to find any research examining the correlation between the Community and Partnership like between dependent and independent variables.

Scientific novelty is determined by a number of factors. As this research examines the subject which is rather new for the scientific community since Strategic Partnership was signed not very long ago, the given research is innovative looking at Russia-ASEAN partnership in relation to the project of ASEAN Community. This paper could contribute to science by providing brand new study of the issue within the framework of structural realism with the help of analytic eclecticism. What is more the work scrutinizes sources, which were not previously widely used in scientific community.

The practical significance of the study is determined by several factors. First, practical recommendations, elaborated in the framework of this research, could contribute to facilitation of Russia-ASEAN cooperation so that to achieve positive multiplier effect for both sides. Moreover, taking into account the results of this research policymakers can enhance the effectiveness of Russia's policy towards the ASEAN member states, consequently, contributing to the realization of Russia's `Pivot to the East' strategy. Also main assessments and outcomes of this research could be useful for new courses and projects both within HSE and among other institutions.

The structure of the work beside introduction and conclusion includes three chapters. First one is theoretical and describe theoretical basis of the research giving guidelines and defining priorities. Second chapter studies the ASEAN Community as multilateral institution comprising of three pillars identifying challenges for deepening of the integration as well as expanding the involvement of ASEAN in and influence on the global processes and positing further tasks. Third chapter is about Russia-ASEAN Strategic Partnership and analyses how it can help to resolve strategic questions of the Community while describing the challenges and history of the parties' relations.

The author does not aim to analyze the effectiveness of ASEAN as an institution and outline its achievements and disadvantages, particularly those which determine intra-ASEAN structure and depend mainly on the political will of the member states and other purely internal matters. The point is to focus on the Association's project of ASEAN Community, which is outward-looking and large-scale, meant to engage other countries. Thereby the researcher will scrutinize the initiative taking into account its ambitious strategic goals and find out how Strategic partnership with Russia as an external resource can contribute to its progress.

1. Theoretical framework of the research

At present ASEAN is an Association of sates, experiencing economic growth and acute need for the resources to maintain the future development. ASEAN is not a state, thus not typical actor of international relations and the subject of classical theoretical paradigms, nor it is an alliance or common institution. ASEAN is more likely a regional intergovernmental organization, a “concert of Southeast Asian nations”, advocating for cooperation and integration among its members and other countries in Asia with the view of security and prosperity. ASEAN stands for and values mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations, etc. ASEAN countries strive for tights integration while preserving national sovereignty. Therefore, analyse ASEAN in the framework of one particular theory is impossible as there are many aspects which will not be taken into consideration.

However, regarding the topic of the research, it is logical to focus not on the phenomenon of ASEAN as the integration grouping and its specific features but on its project of the Community, especially Russia's role in its formation. The idea Community poses the goal of even more deep multidimensional intra-ASEAN integration regarding with more ambitious look on the Asia as a potential area to be involved in ASEAN-centric system. The Association occupies a very convenient strategic position, however, lying on the intersection of interest of great powers. Against this backdrop, ASEAN, nevertheless, see its role in the region as central, being a driver of the integration, what may be favourable for the great powers, but difficult to implement for ASEAN. The confrontation of interests of great powers and collision of the projects may tear ASEAN apart and threaten the idea of Community if not to say its unity, security and hence its independence and what is more survival.

It seems logical to base the analysis on the issue of safety. The concept of safety inheres in all existing theories of international relations. However, the concept of security has evaluated over time as non-traditional threats have emerged and today embraces not only the military component, but also a number of other aspects such as cyber security, energy security, environmental protection, fighting poverty, food security, drug trafficking, international terrorism and many others .

John Mirscheimer posits that the international system is anarchic in nature, which does not imply chaos, but specific principle of the order in the international system with the absence of hierarchy and higher authority above the states which is competent to manage relations among them and ensure security. Thereby there is little choice for the states but to compete with each other. However, Waltz emphasizes that states should not strive for power, but rather try to maintain their positions and to ensure that the others do not maximize power at their expense because it will threaten balance of power and cause balancing in response.

Kenneth Waltz released a research “Theory of International Politics” Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill. which laid foundation for the theory of structural realism. The neorealism or structural realism is based primarily on the tenets of classical realism, inheriting such categories as “balance of power”, “the national interest”, “the sovereignty”, however, supplemented with the concept of “structure” of international relations.

Structural realism defines international relations as a field of ever-changing balance of forces that determines the condition of the entire global system and the positions of its actors, causing indigenous developments in the structure of the relations and behaviours of states. In other words, the interactions between the states directly affect their tactics in accordance with the position occupied by every state in the existing structure of international relations. Therefore, not only the power determines the ability of states to realize their national interests, but also the distribution of capabilities among the states Dunne T., Kurki, M., Smith S. (Eds.). (2013). International Relations Theories: discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press. Third Edition. P.77. .

As the states have different amounts of resources defining their place and role in the system, changes potential capabilities lead to a change in the whole international architecture Waltz.K. Op. cit., hence the states always fear to be overtaken what creates a constant distrust among them. The intentions of states are impossible to predict. States care whether other states intend to alter the balance of power in their favour (revisionist states), or whether they are satisfied enough with existing structure and do not plan to change it (status quo states). Since there is no definite way to discern another state's intentions the uncertainty in relations is unavoidable, which again directly leads to distrust.

Waltz argues that balancing is induced by the system itself as states always care about their vulnerability. He also stresses that states are similar in their needs but not in capabilities to achieve them. This unequal distribution of capabilities undermines the possibility of cooperation because states worry about “relative gains” that is to gain less than another side and fall into the dependence on it.

Unlike classical realists considering with the state as the main actor of international relations, neorealists take into account the whole assemblage of structures that they form, including unions and intergovernmental organizations, although the states still remain the main players in international arena.

Structural realists define “power” not only in terms of control over other states, thus as military concept, but also encompassing such components as the wealth, political stability, size of the state's population, the size of its territory and the availability of resources Waltz.K. Op.cit., which could contribute to the security. State can gain more power not only through military conflict, but also and now even more likely by increasing their share in global wealth or enhancing its technological potential, as China has being doing over the past years.

Anyway the main goal of states is survival. States try to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity regardless of other possible goals like prosperity. The power, in this context, is a means to an ultimate end that is survival.

ASEAN does not have revisionist intensions towards Russia, and vice versa. Hence, they should not be considered as a “predator” in their relationships. Not being competitors with Russia, ASEAN may be interested in maximizing its power and security as such and to balance the influence of other great powers in the region, like China and the United States, and to prevent the likelihood of dependence on them as China has a considerable economic presence in the region, whereas the US influence is obvious in terms of security. Russia, for its part, does not intend to threaten or subordinate ASEAN, but it craves to oppose some other regional actors like the US and China in their expansion on the region. In essence, the relations between Russia and ASEAN could not be considered as those of the rising revisionist and opposing states, but rather as balancing unit.

Unfortunately, structural realism paradigm is still too limited and fails to explain several significant issues. The neorealist's explanation of the motives for the cooperation between states with respect to the APR is simplified considering mainly the reasons of survival and reinforcement of the safety. Such pattern may be well applied to the analyses of the first pillar of the megaproject that is Political-Security Community, but seems inconvenient for the study of the second pillar - Economic Community. Structural realism neglects the nature of many multilateral institutions emerged in the Asia Pacific region recently. The region experiences the increasing trend of building up intra-state linkages and strengthening of economic interdependence which comes to the fore in the agenda of many initiatives, like APEC, RCEP, FTA ASEAN+1, etc. Cooperation is important for the APR in connection with economic reasons, including trade and investment. States establish integration platforms and remove barriers because of common interests in maximizing the economic benefits boded by cooperation. ASEAN states are actively bolstering connectivity among each other in different layers like infrastructure development, trade facilitation, joint scientific projects, strengthening interactions in the field of culture, tourism, etc. This is proved by numerous projects on enhancing connectivity which are as follows: ASEAN Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity, APEC Supply Chain Connectivity Framework Action Plan, the APEC Connectivity Blueprint, etc. In relation to interaction among Russia and ASEAN countries could be mentioned intensification of trade and the activities for its facilitation, like the establishment of the EAEU-Vietnam free trade zone and the FTI with Singapore.

The next problematic postulate of neorealism that needs to be modernized in relation to Southeast Asia is the concentration on the national security which at any time can be threatened by the conflict between great powers. Such probability compels states to permanently maintain a balance of power in the international system.

Nonetheless, the threat of full-scale war is not so likely today in the Southeast Asia, as the possibility of non-traditional threats like terrorism, natural disasters and environmental problems, food and water security, growing rapidly in the region. However, unsettled territorial disputes in South China Sea are still bothering for the involved states and even for those which are not among the interested parties.

Neorealistic approach also ignores the influence of internal factors on the behaviour of states in the international arena. The followers of the theory of structural realism underrate the role of domestic factors such as political regime, leading parties, interest groups, in the international relations, limiting preconditions of the behaviours of states by the structure of the international relations and the scope of its resources, which determine the power of the state. However, it appears that domestic politics and climate have a greater impact on the way the states behave in the international sphere than is commonly believed by neorealists.

Due to the narrowness of the theory of structural realism, it may be reasonable to implement a more holistic approach based on the method of analytic eclecticism which incorporates the patterns from various theories to elaborate more appropriate comprehensive approach. This method was promoted by the theorists Rudra Sil and Peter J. Katzenstein in the work “Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics” and others Rudra Sil, Peter J. Katzenstein. (2010). Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms Across Research Traditions. Perspectives on Politics 8(2). DOI: 10.1017/S1537592710001179. Utilizing analytic eclecticism will allow make connections among the actually related units of analysis and make relevance of narratives which are usually scrutinized in separate theoretical paradigms; hence it will be possible to explicitly describe the specific issues related to ASEAN.

Analyzing Russia-ASEAN partnership in relation to ASEAN Community to fulfill the gaps left by the theory of neoliberalism could be easily applied. Neoliberals trace linkages between political stability and economic welfare. Because of increasing cooperation among states the anarchy in the international environment could possibly be leveled to some extent. As a consequence the development of economic ties could trigger political dialogue and ensure security. Neoliberalists believe that if absolute gains from cooperation are substantial states may disregard the relative ones. However, it is not clear whether this tenet could be fully applied for the relations in Southeast Asia because of the intricate structure and not always unequivocal essence of the relations which occur between great powers and other states, among not great powers and among great powers. At the same time the war as a tool for conflict resolution is excluded from the neoliberal paradigm.

Neoliberalism takes into account also the increasing role of non-state actors, able to influence issues of global concern, and their relations with states. Kaspersky Lab, for instance, has a significant impact on the security of many ASEAN countries and Association itself protecting them from the cyber breaches, intrusions, etc. Due to the expanding variety of actors potentially being able to cause the conflict the new global threats emerge, which, again, should be eliminated through cooperation. Moreover, the threats can stem from not only the relations among actors, but also from other phenomena like disasters, poverty, pandemics, etc. There is no hierarchy of problems as all of them are important, according to neoliberalism.

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye after Richard N. Cooper also developed a concept of complex interdependence postulating the existence of bounding ties among all countries. The position of any country depends on its relations with other states and the configuration of international system as a whole, thus this theory is similar to the structural realism. However, the multilateral dependence makes conflicts unprofitable for states, whereas partnership can lead to the mutual benefit. Actors can communicate through multiple trans-border channels operating on different levels entailing the cooperation. Here can be mentioned as an example Russia-ASEAN Business Council or ASEAN Centre in MGIMO University in Moscow.

The study of the last pillar of the Community - Socio-Cultural, should be supplemented by the constructivist theory, which pays attention to the matters of shared ideas and identities. In the constructivist point of view, the structure of interactions is not determined by nature but also affected by ideas, thereby interpretation matters sometimes even more than the objective reality. One of the main goals of the Socio-Cultural Community is to bolster unity among member states by creating a common identity, which is a constructivist concept. The relations of the Association with its partners could also be explored through lens of constructivist paradigm as, for example, the participation in China's BRI can be justified not only by the vivid advantages or disadvantages for the economic development and security but also by the perception of the initiative, which is not so unequivocal.

To sum up, the theory of structural realism seems relevant to the matter of this research thus will be the framework of the analysis. However, due to the inability of neorealism to explain some aspects of international relations in the APR, the method of analytical eclecticism will be applied to minimize the restrictions posed by one core theory and supplement it with some related postulates from the neoliberal paradigm to utilize a more holistic approach.

In addition, it seems necessary to clarify the concept of strategic partnership within the framework of the chosen theory. Since no common definition of this concept has been adopted yet, considering the experience of international relations and the specificity of the neorealist theory, in this research the status of strategic partnership will mean the high level of relations between two sides characterized by unprecedented trust, respect and focus on the future collaboration with the aim of mutual benefit and stability.

Strategic partnership serves as a guarantee not of the momentary profit, but of the future commitment of the partners to each other, laying the basis for the security and sustainability of the relations and maximizing the power of cooperating actors.

2. The phenomenon of ASEAN Community

2.1 History and features

ASEAN Community is a strategic project of the Association, which has been developed since 1997. The idea of the Community was first put forward in the outcome documents of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur 1997, particularly “ASEAN Vision 2020” ASEAN VISION 2020. (1997). // https://asean.org/?static_post=asean-vision-2020, in planned concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, and living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of caring societies Ibid.. The core idea of the ASEAN Community was to make relations among ASEAN Members more cohesive and to increase and expand the influence of ASEAN in the region and in the world.

Formalized concept was presented at the Bali summit in Indonesia 2003. In the Declaration adopted at the meeting (Bali Concord II)Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II). (2003). // https://asean.org/?static_post=declaration-of-asean-concord-ii-bali-concord-ii, ASEAN Member countries took their cognizance of the future of ASEAN cooperation being guided by the "ASEAN 2020 Vision" and declared an official intention to establish fn ASEAN Community comprising three pillars, namely political and security, economic, and socio-cultural communities and adopted a framework to achieve ASEAN Community. The project comprised not only the internal issue of strengthening ASEAN as more integrated political, economic and cultural space which is a primarily goal, but also an external dimension in terms of the ASEAN's relations with the world at large. 2020 was marked as a deadline to achieve the set goals on the basis of "ASEAN 2020 Vision".

In the Cebu Declaration Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015. (2007) // https://asean.org/cebu-declaration-on-th-acceleration-of-the-establishment-of-an-asean-community-by-2015/ the establishment of ASEAN Community was planned to be achieved by 2015, also by the means of expanding engagement with other states. As some draw parallels, the beginning and expected end of the formation of the ASEAN Community coincided with two serious challenges ? the Asian financial and economic crisis of 1997-1998, and the agreement on the formation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Hence, to hedge possible risks and maintain growth the Association faces the strategic need to develop its own measures and institutions of cooperation and build sustainable relationships with other multilateral initiatives whose development priorities are consonant with its long-term plansKanaev, E. (2016). Formation of ASEAN Community. West - East - Russia. 2016. pp. 49-53. P.49..

Before tracing historical formation of ASEAN Community it is important to define the difference between ASEAN and the Community. There is no general or exact definition of the community thus it is an abstract concept. Nevertheless, one could try to highlight the main features of the ASEAN initiative. The Community is a more integrated group than the Association, consolidated on the basis of common core interests and goals, comprehensive cooperation, coordinated policy on regional security, stability and common issues Lokshin, Kobelev and Mazyrin. (2019). ASEAN Community in the modern world, Moscow, “Forum”, 296p.P. 32.. Furthermore, Community is more open and outward-looking; it aspires to engage in cooperation other like-minded and congenial countries for mutual profit. The aspiration of ASEAM member states to increase the role of the Association in addressing global issues was reflected in official documents like the Bali Declaration on ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations (the Bali Concord III) Bali Declaration on ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations “the Bali Concord III” // https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2011-Bali-Concord-III.pdf.

2.2 ASEAN Political-Security Community

To define the aforementioned ASEAN Community and its pillars, it is necessary to outline the goals and essence of them, detailed in the Roadmap for ASEAN Community 2009-2015Roadmap for ASEAN Community 2009-2015. (2009). // https://www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/2_Roadmap_for_ASEAN_Community_20092015.pdf. The main goal of the ASEAN Political-Security Community can be considered the achievement of the unity of ten member states on the issues of common concern as well as secure, peaceful and stable region. Making the original proposal in Bali, Indonesia declared that the ASEAN Security Community (ASC, later Political Security Community (APSC)) should not resemble a defence pact or military alliance, instead of that it should establish mechanisms for norms-setting, conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peace-building . The Bali Concord II set out the basic framework of the ASC.

As an important step in foundation of the ASC the first ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting took place in 2006 in Kuala Lumpur. At the 13^th summit held in 2007 after long-lasting disputes the ASEAN member states signed the Charter Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2007). // https://asean.org/storage/2012/05/3.-November-2019-The-ASEAN-Charter-27th-Reprint_rev-2711191.pdf, which reaffirmed respect for non-interference, codifying norms and rules hence providing legal status and institutional framework for ASEAN Community.

The APSC is based on the foundation comprising the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) 1976, Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone 1995, and Declaration of the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea 2002.

By the establishing of the APSC the Association seeks to create favorable political conditions for maintaining sustainable growth of its member countries on the basis rules, shared values and norms; creating cohesive, peaceful, stable and resilient region with shared responsibility for comprehensive security; and develop a dynamic and outward-looking region in an increasingly integrated and interdependent world with the focus on ASEAN centrality  ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. (2009). // https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/images/archive/5187-18.pdf, the idea of a key role of the Association in the formation of security architecture in the Asia-Pacific, as well as multilateral economic initiatives ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together. (2015). // https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/67.-December-2015-ASEAN-2025-Forging-Ahead-Together-2nd-Reprint.pdf . So in fact ASEAN member states aspired to create more favorable area for the realization of economic plans, eliminating maximum of possible threats which could undermine economic growth and prosperity.

Despite ambitious plans and intensions ASEAN faced and still faces numerous serious challenges, which impeded the success. The foundation of ASEAN, so called ASEAN Way, itself undermines unity since the measures and decisions are non-binding and voluntary, and, as interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign states is forbidden, effective coordination of actions is difficult. Thus countries are able not to implement the scheduled plans.

Unity is also hampered by multiple South China Sea disputes which at the same time lower inner security and make ASEAN more vulnerable. Vietnam, only one in the ASEAN, claims the Paracel Islands in the dispute with China. Other ASEAN states and the Association itself try to step aside from this issue, presenting it as a bilateral Sino-Vietnamese conflict Kanaev E. (2017). ASEAN at Fifty: Factors behind the “Success Stories”. IMEMO. P.39.

DOI: 10.20542/978-5-9535-0516-1. P.22.. The Philippines also have territorial dispute with China. In both cases the territorial jurisdiction of the islands is the question of security and even national sovereignty. As a result, these states have a more decisive policy towards China, considering it as the aggressor. Malaysia and Brunei, being directly involved in the contradictions over the South China Sea, historically follow a more restrained position, avoiding open criticism of China Korolev A. (2019). Rethinking the experience of security communities building. International trends. Vol. 17. № 3 (58). pp. 80-98. DOI 10.17994/IT.2019.17.3.58.6. P.91.. Countries, which have no territorial claims towards China, stand for peaceful settlement on the basis of the UN Convention 1982 on the law of the sea and the Code of Conduct of parties in the South China Sea, which is under development. Meanwhile these countries also support US limited military presence in the regionLokshin, Kobelev and Mazyrin. Op. cit. P.146..

The absence of unity within ASEAN was proved by vote in the UN General Assembly on the issue of human rights in Myanmar in 2017. Such countries as Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Brunei supported the resolution, while the other five countries opposed the document, calling for the cessation of hostilities against Muslim population. The development of a common position of ASEAN as a united actor is undermined by the reluctance of the member states to delegate part of their sovereignty to supranational institutions that is why some criticize ASEAN for the weak governance.

The Association has not developed effective mechanisms for the conflict resolution. Many territorial disputes in Southeast Asia, e.g. regarding the Preah Vihear Temple between Cambodia and Thailand, the island territories between Malaysia and Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore and the Philippine claim to Sabah largely are resolved with the help of the UN. However, ASEAN successfully prevents escalation of the conflicts into the state of hostilities.

Source: Putra, Bama Andika, Darwis, & Burhanuddin. (2019). ASEAN Political-Security Community: Challenges of establishing regional security in the Southeast Asia. Journal of International Studies, 12(1), 33-49.

On the international level the structure of the region constitutes an entanglement of interests of extra-regional actors, including the great powers, what complicates the overall atmosphere in the Asia Pacific and tears ASEAN from the inside. China is assertive in its policy towards ASEAN, intensifying and deepening its involvement in the region through the realization of “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) project. China unites the concepts of "security" and "development"Kanaev E. (2017). Sources of ASEAN''s Success and Emergence of Greater Eurasia. International Trends. Vol. 15. № 3 (50). pp. 68-75. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2017.15.3.50.7. P. 85. , hence BRI can't but be considered as a comprehensive project comprising economic, security and political goals. Consequently, it is reasonable to predict that China will be building a regional security system focusing on its own concerns. As a result full scale implementation of this initiative may lead to marginalization of ASEAN negotiation institutions, so that the Association could lose its central role in the regional processes.

China's reinforcement will definitely cause India's responsive steps accelerating its “Act in the East” policy. This will almost certainly lead to a clash of interests between India and China in Southeast Asia with negative consequences for ASEAN in the sense of centrality and security Kanaev E. (2017). ASEAN at Fifty… P.29..

Japan has active economic relations with many ASEAN countries, increasing interconnectedness within the framework of the program "Partnership for quality infrastructure" and the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) with India. Japan intends to invest in the infrastructure of the countries, particularly through the Asian Development Bank, to strengthen its position in the competition for Asia. Japan has close ties with India and the USA to counter China's presence in the region. The issue not only has economic and political dimension, but also is a matter of security as Tokyo plays an important role in the system of American alliances in the Asia Pacific.

Another obstacle to the formation of ASEAN consolidated position on security issues is bilateral agreements of member states with extra-regional players. Some countries like Philippines and Thailand are units of the US “hub and spoke” system of military alliances while others like Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam have just close military-technical dialogue with Washington. The US concept of Indo-Pacific region (IPR) could threaten both the unity of ASEAN as some countries, mainly Indonesia, are preoccupied of potential benefits of the new configuration of cooperation, while it may contradict and undermine the fundamental ASEAN principles of balancing among great powers and non-alignment; and the centrality of the Association in the regional architecture Lee J. (2018). Trends in Southeast Asia. The “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” and Implications for ASEAN. ISEAS

Yusof Ishak Institute. No. 13. pp. 1-34. // https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/TRS13_18.pdf P.28..

The IPR concept is obviously aimed against China, thus in case of deterioration of relations between the US and China, the Philippines and Thailand, linked with the US alliance obligations, will find themselves in the predicament Korolev A. (2019). Rethinking the experience… P.93.. Moreover, the Philippines is among the main recipients of the US aid in the region, while almost half of financing accounts for the military assistance U.S. Foreign Aid by Country. The Philippines. U.S. Agency for International Development // https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd/PHL?fiscal_year=2018&measure=Disbursements. The USA is highly interested in Vietnam, naming it the first of the US partners in the Southeast Asia (before Indonesia and Malaysia) Indo-Pacific Strategy Report. (2019). U.S. Department of Defense. // https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/31/2002139210/-1/-1/1/DOD_INDO_PACIFIC_STRATEGY_REPORT_JUNE_2019.PDF . In this regard could be considered symbolic that D. Trump announced the vision for a “Free and open Indo-Pacific” at the APEC Summit in Vietnam in 2017.

The prospect of deterioration of political relations between China and the United States, India, Australia and Japan (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) in the context of the IPR could also undermine multilateral commercial projects in Southeast Asia and ASEAN dialogue platforms Kanaev E. (2017). ASEAN Economic Community: a New Area of Business Activity. South East Asia: Actual problems of Development. № 37. pp. 14-27. // https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ekonomicheskoe-soobschestvo-asean-novoe-prostranstvo-delovoy-aktivnosti P.23..

In the conditions of contradictions and under the threat of intra-ASEAN split the Association managed to conduct first ASEAN multilateral naval exercises AMNEX 2017 in Thailand. The second are planned to take place in Vietnam in 2020. In October 2018 ASEAN held the first joint military maneuvers with China; in September 2019 maritime drills AUMX with the U.S were executed. For ASEAN joint exercises could act as sources of new experience, ideas and ways of tackling possible security challenges, while preserving “ASEAN way” and balancing among great powers.

Nevertheless, both the AUMX, and the ASEAN-China maritime exercises, are conducted in the interests of the great powers to enhance their influence in ASEAN. Thus ASEAN capabilities to address coercive challenges from external states are obviously limited Kapur L. (2019). The ASEAN-U.S. Maritime Exercise and Maritime Security. Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. CSIS. // https://amti.csis.org/the-asean-u-s-military-exercise-and-maritime-security/.

ASEAN member countries conduct bilateral and multilateral consultations on the questions of security within the framework of ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting (AMM), ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM), ASEAN+8, annual summits, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and East Asia Summit (EAS), bolstering cooperation among military departments as well.

Troublesome for ASEAN is the problem of religious fundamentalism, extremism and terrorism. Such countries as Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines suffer from radical Islamic groups appear, in particular followers of ISIS, mainly militants, returned from the Middle East. A big threat pose local radical groups ? Jemaah Islamiyah, Ansar Khalifa Philippines, Mujahidin Indonesia Timur, etc. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2019 Global Terrorism Index 2019. Institute for Economics and Peace // http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2019/11/GTI-2019web.pdf , the Philippines (9) and Thailand (18) are among first countries the 20 with the highest rate of Terrorist Activity.

In the modern world reality of digitalization cannot but be analyzed the issue of cyber security, as internet technologies could be used by criminals, including terrorists, to attack and exploit critical infrastructure or secret data, not to mention businesses and individuals. ASEAN takes numerous steps to prevent and combat cyber security threats. In 2016 ASEAN Cyber Capacity Programme (ACCP) was launched, aimed at development technical, policy and strategy-building capabilities within ASEAN countries. The Programme comprises workshops, seminars and conferences. The ACCP calendar also includes the Singapore International Cyber Week, with the ASEAN Ministerial Conference on Cybersecurity (AMCC) as a platform for discussions on the matters of regional cyber security.

In September 2017 ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC) adopted The ASEAN Plan of Action in Combating Transnational Crime (2016-2025) to follow up the mandate of the 2015 Kuala Lumpur Declaration in Combating Transnational Crime and contribute to the realisation of the ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint 2025ASEAN Plan of Action in Combating Transnational Crime (2016-2025). (2017). // https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ASEAN-Plan-of-Action-in-Combating-TC_Adopted-by-11th-AMMTC-on-20Sept17.pdf.