There is no way of getting around it and little point in being excessively diplomatic about it. This has been one of the most difficult, if not downright unsuccessful, years for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) since the triumph of communism in Indochina in 1975, if not since the founding of ASEAN itself in 1967. The regional economic crisis, the political breakdown and fighting in Cambodia, the failure of Cambodia's attempt to join ASEAN, Western reaction to Myanmar's membership of ASEAN, and the smoke-haze phenomenon which literally shrouded much of the region in gloom in the latter part of 1997, all combined to make this an annus horribilis par excellence (to mix up my European languages).

Of course, we need a little corrective context here. One reason why ASEAN's travails have been so vexing in 1997 was that we have come to expect ASEAN to be associated with success. This kind of good reputation represents a significant achievement in its own right. But ASEAN's achievements are much more than just reputational. It has become one of the most successful and, in its way, effective regional bodies in the world.

In 1967 ASEAN was founded, much like the European Economic Community had been, with two more or less immediate purposes in mind. These were avoiding conflict among its member-nations and creating a more resilient community to withstand the potential strategic challenges posed by communism during the Cold War. ASEAN, too, had its visionaries and its founders did not put any limits on what it might eventually achieve, although there were strict operational limitations observed, especially in the early days. But the main original ambitions were modest and defensive. Of course ASEAN was always much more ambiguous than the European Economic Community (which later came to be known as the European Union) for the simple reason that Southeast Asia is a vastly more diverse and complex region than Western Europe.