The central questions that persistently nag at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) involve its relevance. How relevant is the Association in dealing with contemporary problems in its region? Can ASEAN address the global trend toward democracy? Can its members cooperate to solve emerging transnational problems, ranging from environmental pollution to financial crises? Is the “ASEAN Way” conducive to specific policies that significantly improve the lives of Southeast Asians? These questions—articulated at conferences, in policy papers, and in the popular media—continue to swirl around ASEAN.

At one level the question of relevance is unfair. Since its founding in 1967, ASEAN has proven its value by creating a stable and peaceful region. Since 1967, no two member states have waged war against each other. This is not a feat to be scoffed at. In the late 1960s, ethnic, Communist, and interstate tensions abounded in Southeast Asia, as they did in other parts of the developing world, such as the Middle East and Africa. ASEAN has made huge strides in establishing a zone of peace—or a security community—in its region.

At another level, the question of relevance will simply not go away. There are too many issues that ASEAN has simply failed to address. These include transnational problems and questions of human rights and democracy. Most vexing of all is the dilemma over what, if anything, to do about the dictatorship in Myanmar (or Burma), an ASEAN member. The Association has been unable to respond adequately to this issue, swaying back and forth between upholding the principle of noninterference and intermittently seeking some form of change through private dialogue. Until this problem is solved, ASEAN will be unable to shed the perception that it is an ineffective organization.

Two related norms that define ASEAN hold the Association back in dealing productively with contemporary Southeast Asian problems: first, the principle of sovereignty and noninterference, and second, the ASEAN Way of group consensus, discreet dialogue, and informal procedure.