Abstract
This article reviews Michael Leifer’s contribution to the study of Southeast Asian regionalism, particularly the role of ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Unlike some who portray Leifer as a realist or a neo-realist who totally dismissed the role of ASEAN in the regional order, this article argues that the real difference between Leifer’s and the newer constructivist understanding of Southeast Asia is not so much over whether regionalism matters, but under what conditions does it matter. Leifer viewed material forces, such as the prior existence of a great-power balance as a precondition of effective regionalism. He paid less attention to norm dynamics and the politics of regional identity formation. He did not consider them as independent forces in regional order. This paper argues that taking a more sociological approach, factoring in the role of regional norms and identity formation offers a more complete explanation of ASEAN’s achievements and failures than Leifer’s diplomatic investigations focusing on the balance of power. This also opens the space for a more transformative understanding of Asian security order in which socialization and institution-building are to be seen not merely as adjuncts to the balance of power dynamics, but as shapers of the regional balance of power.
PDF