2024年6月，复旦大学中国与周边国家关系研究中心祁怀高研究员指导的博士生Elbinsar Purba在国际期刊《Unnes Political Science Journal》上发表了题为《Southeast Asian Peace Revisited: A Call for More Comprehensive Explanation》的论文。Elbinsar Purba是复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院DPIP全英文项目2022级博士生，来自印度尼西亚，曾在东盟秘书处工作。“复旦中国周边研究”公众号推送该论文的缩略版，阅读全文请点击文末“阅读原文”。
Elbinsar Purba, a doctoral student under the supervision of professor QI Huaigao of the Center for China's Relations with Neighbouring Countries at Fudan University (CCRNC Fudan), published a paper in Unnes Political Science entitled "Southeast Asian Peace Revisited: A Call for More Comprehensive Explanation" in June 2024. Elbinsar Purba is a Ph.D. candidate of DPIP program at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University (SIRPA Fudan). He comes from Indonesia and worked in the ASEAN Secretariat. Official account of CCRNC Fudan posts the abbreviated version of the paper. To read the full text, please click "read the original" at the end of the post.
Elbinsar Purba, “Southeast Asian Peace Revisited: A Call for More Comprehensive Explanation,” Unnes Political Science Journal, Vol. 8, No. (2024), pp. 30-38.
Link: https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/upsj/article/view/5783.
摘要：许多学者都试图解释为何东南亚能够成功地维持地区和平与稳定。然而，目前的理论存在相互矛盾的解释，远不能提供令人信服且被普遍接受的答案。本文阐述了这一僵局形成的原因，并发现东南亚有其独特的特征，即多样性、殖民经历、不确定的文化和不发达且不互补的经济，这些特征共同决定了其转型的性质。由于这些特征，塑造东南亚和平进程的因素是多样的，这一区域没有主导的驱动力去推动和平，其演变是逐步发展的。本文认为，这给东南亚和平研究带来了严重的方法论挑战。最后，本文提出了克服这些挑战的几点建议。
Abstract: Many authors have tried to explain why Southeast Asia has been able to successfully maintain regional peace and stability. However, far from being able to provide convincing and commonly accepted answer, the current theories suffer from competing explanations and leave the puzzle unresolved. This paper explains the cause of this stalemate and finds that there are characteristics specific to Southeast Asia that collectively determine the nature of its transformation, namely diversity, colonial experience, culture of indeterminacy, and underdeveloped and non-complementary economy. As result of these characteristics, there are diverse factors that shape its peace evolution, there is no dominant driver of peace, and the region evolves incrementally. The paper argues that, in turn these lead to a serious methodological challenge for research on Southeast Asian peace. The paper concludes by offering some suggestions to overcome the challenge.
东南亚曾经以冲突和战争而闻名，被喻为亚洲的巴尔干。但从20世纪70年代开始，随着东南亚国家加强对话和区域合作，情况发生了明显的变化。如今，东南亚经常被誉为一个和平地区。
Southest Asia used to be renowned for conflicts and wars and analogously regarded as Balkan of Asia.However, the picture changed notably in 1970s as Southeast Asian nations started to strengthen dialogues and regional cooperation. Nowadays, Southeast Asia has been frequently praised as a region of peace.
这种转变引起了许多学者的兴趣，并且一直是学术争论的主题。然而，这导致了对东南亚和平原因的相互矛盾的解释与理论。研究自由主义的人经常将经济相互依存、区域机构和民主作为和平进程的推动力。特别是，东南亚国家联盟（东盟）及其机构被视为东南亚乃至东亚地区和平转型的关键力量。通过东盟达成的各种经济协议使该地区许多人从区域一体化中受益，这激励决策者维护该地区的和平与稳定。与此同时，建构主义者强调东南亚国家共同价值观和文化的重要作用。对话与协商、共识与克制以及国家主权与不干涉内政的原则都是共同价值观的产物，有助于防止争端升级为公开冲突。但是，对于现实主义者来说，这些看起来都不可信。在他们眼里，东南亚和平可以用区域外的力量平衡来解释，尤其是美国的作用，以及东南亚国家的自助行为。他们认为，像东盟这样的区域组织实际上并没有显著的影响，有时甚至会阻碍外部大国有意义的参与。
This transformation intrigues many scholars and has been a subject of academic debate. However, this has led to competing explanation and rivalling theories on the cause of peace in Southeast Asia. Those who study liberalism often cite economic interdependence, regional institutions, and democracy as the driver of the peace processes. In particular, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its organs are seen as a key driver behind peaceful regional transformation in Southeast Asia and even in broader East Asia. Various economic agreements formed by and through ASEAN enable many people across the region to benefit from regional integration, incentivising policy makers to maintain peace and stability in the region. Meanwhile, constructivists underline the important roles of common values and cultures across Southeast Asian nations. Reliance on dialogue and consultation, the practice of consensus and self-restraint, and the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference are among the products of the shared values and have contributed to preventing escalation of disputes into open conflicts. For realists, however, none of these looks convincing. For them, Southeast Asian peace is explained by extra-regional power balances, noting the roles of the United States in particular, and self-help behaviour of Southeast Asian countries. They believe that regional bodies such as ASEAN do not actually have notable impacts and sometimes even frustrate meaningful engagement of external powers.
上述这些是东南亚相关文献中辩论和分歧的例子。这些相互矛盾的理论是如何产生的？为什么没有一个令人信服且被普遍接受的东南亚和平解释？这一问题的根本原因在于，东南亚有四个相互加强的特征。
These are examples of debate and disagreement in Southeast Asian literature. What cause these competing theories? Why there is no convincing and well-accepted explanation of Southeast Asian peace? There are four mutually-reinforcing characteristics of Southeast Asia that serve as root cause of this problem.
首先，东南亚以多样性著称。这意味着有各种各样的因素共同影响着东南亚各国之间的关系。虽然某些差异可以成为优势，对互相之间的交流产生积极影响，但许多差异也会限制社会化进程、共同身份的发展、“我们感”的形成以及凝聚力的增强。
First, Southeast Asia is well known as a region of diversity. This indicates that there are diverse factors that collectively influence relations among Southeast Asian countries. While certain differences can serve as a strength and be positive for exchanges, many of the differences constrain the process of socialisation, development of common identity, sense of “we-ness”, and cohesion.
其次，殖民主义深深地植根于东南亚人民的记忆中，并塑造了他们对外国人的看法。与多样性类似，这种经历可能会限制社会化和区域一体化的程度。争取独立的斗争引发了民族主义的兴起，所以对这些国家来说，主权成为不可妥协的内容。因此，在区域合作中，各国更看重本国利益而非区域或全球利益，任何形式的外部势力干预往往会被拒绝。
Second, colonialism is deeply rooted in the memory of Southeast Asian people and shapes their perception of outsiders. Similar to diversity, this experience can limit the extent of socialisation and regional integration. The struggle for independence triggered the rise of nationalism and sovereignty became non-negotiable for these nations. Consequently, in their regional cooperation, national interests are prioritised over regional or global ones and any form of external power’s intervention tends to be rejected.
第三，不确定的文化在东南亚国家的行为中得到了强烈体现。他们不愿在现有的选项或可能性之间做出明确或果断的选择。相反，他们保持灵活性，选择逐步推进的步骤，以确保未来仍有选择的余地。在合作中，他们很少采取大胆的行动。相反，他们采取温和的举措，风险和成本较低。这种文化显然不利于进行变革。
Third, the culture of indeterminacy is strongly reflected in the behaviour of Southeast Asian countries.They do not want to take stark or decisive selection over available options or possibilities. Instead, they maintain flexibility and choose incremental steps that do not foreclose future options. In their cooperation, they rarely take bold actions. Instead, they maintain moderate moves with low possible risks and costs. Definitely, this culture does not bode well with transformative changes.
最后，东南亚国家主要是发展中国家（一些是最不发达国家）。由于发展不足，民族和国家建设仍然是许多国家的首要任务，并且经常成为其外交政策的驱动力。这进一步强调了国家利益至上的原则，国家倾向于追求短期收益，有时在争夺外国资本时可能会出现利己主义行为，从而削弱区域团结。与此同时，区域外的发达国家在向东南亚国家提供商品和服务时更具优势。这还得益于东南亚国家之间经济联系相对薄弱的事实。鉴于这些因素，东盟内部贸易和人员流动仍然处于一个较低的水平就并不令人意外了。
Lastly, Southeast Asian nations are mainly developing (some are least-developed) country. Due to underdevelopment, nation- and state-building remains a top priority for many of these countries and often drives their foreign policy. This reinforces the primacy of national interest, tendency to focus on short-term gains, and sometimes could result in egoistical behaviour as they compete for foreign capital and lessen regional solidarity. At the same time, advanced countries outside the region are more equipped to supply goods and services into Southeast Asian countries. This is reinforced by the fact that economic cohesion among Southeast Asian countries is relatively weak. With these, that intra-ASEAN trade and people mobility remains low shall not be surprising for anyone.
总的来说，这四个根本原因对东南亚和平意味着以下几点。首先，有多种因素塑造了东南亚的演变，包括其和平发展。这些因素相互作用，并且其中一些因素的作用是相反的，例如促进和阻碍和平转型。其次，没有主导的驱动力去推动和平。像经济相互依存、区域机构以及共同身份等和平引擎，在面对对抗力量时无法产生显著的推动作用。第三，该地区是逐步演变的。这三点为东南亚和平问题的研究带来了一个关键性理论后果：没有一个足够的且具有决定性的独立变量可以明确地解释东南亚的和平问题。国际关系中的一些大理论，比如现实主义、自由主义和建构主义，可能会提供一些启示，但只是部分地解释了问题。单独而言，它们都无法提供可靠的、最终性的解释。研究东南亚和平问题的人应该牢记这些根本原因及其方法论后果。
Collectively, these four root causes mean the following for Southeast Asian peace. First, there are diverse factors that shape evolution of Southeast Asia including its peace development. The factors interact with one another and some of them move in opposing direction e.g. promoting and hindering peaceful transformation. Second, there is no dominant driver of peace. Engine of peace such as economic interdependence, institutions, and common identity cannot produce significant push given that they are faced with countering forces. Third, the region evolves incrementally. In turn, these three bring a crucial methodological consequence for research on Southeast Asian peace: there is no sufficient or deterministic independent variable that can attributably explain Southeast Asian peace. Grand theories in international relations such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism might shed some light but only partially. Individually, none of them is able to provide reliable and conclusive explanation. Those who study Southeast Asian peace should keep these root causes and the methodological consequences in mind.
感谢复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院硕士生笪轩的中译。
Thanks to Da Xuan, a master student at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, for translating the text into Chinese.
