ASEAN throughout its existence faced a number of challenges including dramatic changes in the security framework of a particularly turbulent region as well as the financial crisis of the late 1990s and the multiple controversies among its Member States and the influence of changing neighbouring powers. In order to survive it had, on the one hand, to be flexible enough to cope with the challenges of internal diversity, territorial integrity and the political fragility of regimes in South-East Asia. On the other hand, it had to be sufficiently innovative to be able to face bilateral territorial tensions and huge regional security challenges. The ASEAN success is especially evident given the poor record of other Asian regional organizations. The current article provides a striking comparison of its achievements with the lack of substantive results of SAARC grouping in South East Asia. It furthermore claims that lessons derived from the ASEAN practices could be relevant for relatively successful integration blocks, such as the European Union and Eurasian integration process. In its internal processes the ASEAN way proved to be an effective method for organizing regional cooperation. It avoided on the one hand the standing European conflict between intergovernmental and community methods and was able to show the huge potential of various intergovernmental networking in supporting further progresse in deepening and widening regional cooperation. On the other hand, the ASEAN way is a bottom-up method excluding hierarchical decision making and a single country supremacy. In terms of organizing relations with external partners the Association positioned itself as not only Asia’s most important regional organization, but also the driving agent for a regional order in trade, economic, security, and identity needs. The practice of concentric circles of partnerships proved flexible enough and able of combining political leadership of the hard core (ASEAN centrality) with openness and inclusiveness, at various degrees of near and far partners. The challenges ahead are internal fragmentation and, in particular, the potentially dividing pressure of security challenges in the neighbouring area, often deepened by power politics of great global actors like China and USA.

The paper presents a multidimensional analysis of the economic development of four Indochina countries – Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV) as part of ASEAN. The scientific relevance of this topic proceeds from both its actuality and insufficient knowledge about it in Russia. Main trends of the analyzed processes are under consideration in four sections. First, the author reveals the indicators, causes, challenges and consequences of the rapid economic growth of the CLMV group. In particular, this section reveals energy vulnerability of the Southeast Asian countries and possible ways of overcoming it. The second section presents the formats of integration in the region, the difference of benefits for ASEAN members and greater advantages of the Indochina countries. Special attention is paid to deepening cooperation between the latter. The third section presents several examples of the economic impact of major powers in the region – China, the USA and Japan – on the SEA countries in general and the ASEAN-4 in particular from the perspective of the parties’ interests. The author puts forward a thesis that China advances economic initiatives aiming to undermine the US dominance in the region, while Japan expands its position in Indochina. The level of economic and trade relations of these countries with ASEAN is estimated too. In addition, the author analyses relations in this realm between the ASEAN-4 and the Russian Federation. The fourth section displays the priority sectors of the Russian capital input (energy, mining, agricultural production, services) and tools for investment cooperation, and discloses the dynamics, balance and structure of mutual trade. A significant lag of Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar in comparison with Vietnam as partners of Russia is identified. In a nutshell, this section summarizes peculiarities of trade and economic relations, and formulates positive factors and obstacles influencing the development of Russia's cooperation with the CLMV group, especially with the less developed Indochina countries. The author concludes that the ASEAN-4 economies, due to their membership in the Association and further integration into regional structures, have found relevant patterns, methods, and formats of development according to their interests. They selected the larger East Asian states, the US and the EU as key partners and guarantors of their own progress. Nevertheless, the Indochina countries seek to expand cooperation with Russia. The Russian Federation is also trying to strengthen relations with its former allies, but this is difficult to achieve because of the limited capacity of the parties. Due to these reasons, Russia's cooperation with the "Quartet" of Indochina countries lags well behind the level achieved by the main competitors.

The association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is one of the oldest integration institutions in the world focused on the regional political, economic and socio-cultural issues. From 1999 onwards ASEAN has united under its auspices all ten countries of Southeast Asia. Theoretically speaking, this fact creates necessary preconditions for productive discussions of all regional cooperation issues because no regional actor is left outside regional interaction and can voice concerns at the regional level. The Association has no plans to expand its membership further, beyond Southeast Asia. However since 1970s “functional expansion” has become a distinguishing feature of ASEAN. Nowadays it envisages that the Association, not expanding formally, nevertheless establishes special frameworks (dialogue partnerships) for interaction with a number of important macroregional and extraregional players. This article analyzes the phenomena of “functional expansion” in ASEAN activities and the significance of dialogue partnerships for ASEAN today. ASEAN’s fiftieth anniversary thus provides a good opportunity, on one hand, to perform a retrospective analysis and, on the other hand, to appraise ASEAN’s current policy in the region in the context of its interaction with other major international players. Referring to the extensive ASEAN-focused research literature and official documents, this article argues that for the past five decades ASEAN member states have passed through several periods of interaction with these kind of players. ASEAN started by mastering the ability to neutralize external leadership impulses towards the region and gradually moved towards working out its own institutional and normative instruments of managing its external relationships. This system of management, however, is not without its own limitations. Structurally the article refers to the historical retrospective of ASEAN’s relations with external players at various stages of the Association’s own development, analyses the current state of these relations and their functions for ASEAN external policy and finally focuses on the ways ASEAN is trying to manage and influence these relations in the way beneficial for the Association.

ASEAN and the Eurasian Economic Union as regional integration blocks may be viewed as two opposite poles in terms of their accessibility to coastal regions. On the one hand, the Eurasian Economic Union is a unique integration arrangement, in which all member countries, apart from the Russian Federation, are landlocked. On the other hand, ASEAN may be termed as one of the most “oceanic” integration blocks in the world as out of its 10 members only Laos is landlocked, while out of the 50 largest container ports in the world eight are located in ASEAN countries, with Singapore being second on the overall world rankings. Such divergence in terms of geo-economics and accessibility to the seashores between ASEAN and the Eurasian Economic Union should be considered not as a barrier to cooperation, but rather a complementarity factor that may reinforce the potential benefits from economic integration between these two groups. In particular, for ASEAN an alliance with the Eurasian Economic Union opens up a possibility for deeper penetration into a relatively secluded continental region. On the other hand, an alliance with ASEAN enables the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union to overcome continental barriers and use the alliances with ASEAN companies as a platform for integration into the global economy, for gaining access to a fast-growing Asian market and for optimizing transportation costs. The geographical factor in relations between ASEAN and the Eurasian Economic Union argues in favor of creating a competitive transportation system that serves to intermediate trade flows between Southeast Asia and Europe. As a result, the ASEAN-Eurasian Economic Union alliance may be considered as a “hybrid” oceanic-continental alliance, in which the synergy of integration is derived not solely from trade and investment effects, but also from the transportation/logistical complementarity in the Eurasian geoeconomic space. The formation of an alliance between the two very different blocks in terms of their geoeconomics – the Eurasian Economic Union as a continental and ASEAN as an oceanic alliance – may provide important synergy for both blocks in terms of realization of their economic potential.

The very first steps in ASEAN research in the USSR were made at a time when the Association was perceived as an unfriendly union and many experts were skeptical about its future. Modern researchers of ASEAN in Russia work in a completely different environment and hardly recall those perceptions. Meanwhile, it seems that systematization of knowledge about ASEAN research as well as an understanding of the dynamics of its development could help to assess the effectiveness of the work done and adjust it to contemporary standards. The article analyzes the development of ASEAN research in the USSR and Russia. The first part of the article identifies research phases in the USSR and Russia and describes their key trends. Two phases have been defined in the Soviet period based on the intensity of the research (from the late 1960s to the mid1980s and from the mid-1980s to 1991). Contemporary Russian studies are divided into three phases in accordance with the changes that triggered the growth of interest in ASEAN in the academic circles of the Russian Federation (from 1991 to the mid-2000s, from the mid-2000s to 2014, and from 2014 up to the present). The second part specifies the institutional structure of ASEAN research in the USSR and Russia and outlines its key directions. Increasing attention to ASEAN is manifested in the growing number of institutions involved, publications, joint initiatives, and events. Nevertheless, most of them still involve organizations located in Moscow, while regional structures are less active. It seems that intensification of analytical and scientific work related to ASEAN in regional universities (especially in Siberia and the Far East) is likely to have a positive impact on the effectiveness of cooperation between Russia and ASEAN in future. Now, there are both opportunities and limitations for the further development of Russia-ASEAN relations. In this regard, enhancing work on joint publications, international exchanges and individual research initiatives cancreate a basis fortaking more advantage from the track II diplomacy in the upcoming projects.

The article aims to identify and analyze factors behind the success of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) policy during its fifty-year history. Giving insights in the ASEAN approach to Southeast Asia’s international security challenges during the Cold War, the author then turns to ASEAN’s policy towards the establishment of Asia-Pacific multilateral dialogue platforms on security issues through the prism of identifying the external and internal prerequisites for its success. The article highlights the most important global and regional challenges that ASEAN is currently encountering, and its readiness to respond appropriately. Finally, the article focuses upon the degree of ASEAN’s relevance to its partners in terms of its potential contribution to the establishment of Greater Eurasia. In the author’s view, necessary preconditions for ASEAN’s successful policy are emerging there.

The relevance of the undertaken analysis rests upon ASEAN’s eagerness to raise its competitiveness against the downward trends in relations between global actors and the upcoming projection of their contradictions on the Asia-Pacific and Southeast Asia. Among the key reasons behind ASEAN’s successes and failures during and after the Cold War, the author identifies readiness of ASEAN’s partners to regard it as a unified entity, give it the privilege to moderate multilateral cooperation, and readiness of ASEAN itself to assume this mission. These three conditions predetermined ASEAN’s international policy success, mainly manifested by the resolution of the Cambodian issue and establishment of multilateral dialogue platforms in the Asia-Pacific region. Realizing that only the multipolar world gives it chances for a decent future and encountering the rise of conflict in the current global political and economic affairs with its projection on Southeast Asia, the Association aims to develop cooperation in Greater Eurasia. This corresponds to the priorities of ASEAN’s Eurasian partners over the establishment of a continental security, cooperation and co-development system, with ASEAN as an important actor. The presence of the three basic prerequisites for ASEAN’s high international competitiveness and their synergy give ample reasons to expect new ASEAN “success stories”, this time in Greater Eurasia.

Since its inception 50 years ago, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has made considerable progress and many of its projects have been overall successful. Nonetheless, its greatest achievement may be that it shaped and helped spread a unique political culture and a new set of norms for macroregional international interaction. ASEAN taught its region the value of dialogue and to maintain contact despite existing differences. This qualitative change is especially evident in contrast to Northeast Asia, otherwise very similar to its southeast neighbors in political composition and history. Not only does Northeast Asia shy away from deep intraregional cooperation, but it also treats confrontation as the main mode of interaction and employs conflict rather than dialogue as its preferred means of exchanging political signals. At first glance, this situation can be explained away with the region’s unique history and background. However, Southeast Asia experienced very similar centrifugal and polarizing influences on the eve of ASEAN’s creation and throughout its life (these include existential legitimacy conflicts, old and new historical issues, territorial disputes, divergent political interests and orientations). Nonetheless, the rise of this organization changed regional political discourse and consequently mitigated these factors, encouraging states to engage in dialogue regardless of differences. History knows of cases when ASEAN norms and practices spilled over to Northeast Asia: such are trilateral meetings between Japan, China and the Republic of Korea, or Northeast Asia’s integration into the ASEAN Regional Forum. However, it would be naively absurd to expect ASEAN to resolve all of its neighbors’ problems. Rather, its principles and spirit may become a great example for structures that may emerge in Northeast Asia. This path would require revitalizing and carefully reforming of the institutions already in place out there, such as the Six-Party Talks on the Korean nuclear problem. Real dialogue would provide all parties with new leverage to control the international situation. While it may be insufficient to eliminate the region’s security dilemmas, its launch would avert the worst and set the stage for long-term resolution of Northeast Asia’s long-suffered conflicts.

Interview with Amb. prof. Kishore Mahbubani.

A book review: Mosiakov D.V. The New and the newest history. Modernization and globalization in Oriental societies. M.: NOUHVPO “Institute of Oriental studies”, 2016. 560 p.

A book review: Outward Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN / ed. by C. Lee, S. Sermcheep. Singapore: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, 2017. 231 р.

A book review: Telo M. Regionalism in Hard Times. Competitive and Post-Liberal Trends in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas. London, New York: Routledge, 2017. 86 p.

A book review: Mahbubani K., Sng J. The ASEAN Miracle. A Catalyst for Peace. Singapore: Singapore NUS Press, 2017. 264 p. 

A book review: Womack B. Asymmetry and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 244 p.

On August, 8th, 2017 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) turned 50. Five decades ago on that day the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines and the Vice-Premier of Malaysia signed the Bangkok Declaration thus establishing ASEAN. In so doing, the Association’s founding fathers were longing to mitigate mutual contradictions and conflicts (including territorial ones) for the sake of one common goal – repelling the ‘communist threat’ emanating from within the then ASEAN member states as well as from neighboring Indochina and China. It was hard to imagine at that time that in the early 21st century the People’s Republic of China would head the list of key trade and investment partners of ASEAN; that ASEAN would embrace Vietnam as its member and that the Association itself would turn to be a model of regional cooperation for developing countries. ASEAN’s achievements are evident, though they did not come easily. Internal problems in certain Member States and transnational challenges complicated intra-ASEAN interaction. ASEAN countries had to resist external pressure, too. That only emphasizes the fact that the ASEAN phenomenon is not the result of a happy coincidence. Rather, ASEAN success stems from well-thought-out and coherent efforts. This article, thus, analyses the Association’s achievements in overcoming intra-regional cleavages, then it talks about challenges ASEAN is facing today and ends up with a brief assessment of strategic goals common to both ASEAN and Russia. The article argues that cooperation in achieving these goals could help the dialogue partners to find a common response to numerous global and regional challenges.