I have often made the
analogy between ASEAN and a professional (or even collegiate) sports league. The U.S. brouhaha of the week shows how
ASEAN’s institutions are even weaker than those of a typical sports league.
In my analogy, ASEAN is less
like the EU or NAFTA and more like a league of sports teams which cooperate to
deal with external and internal issues, but with relatively weak central
institutions. The teams/countries cooperate
to negotiate with outside parties (TV contracts for the sports leagues, free
trade agreements for ASEAN). Both
organizations want to attract investments of time and money (fans for the
sports league, investors for ASEAN).
Both organizations have a central office that has limited authority over
operations (central office/commissioner for the sports league, ASEAN
Secretariat) to improve the quality of the games but ultimate authority rests
with the leaders (the team owners in the sports league, national leaders in
ASEAN). The central office has limited authority only to set the rules of
operation (the scheduling of games or the size and shape of the ball used in a
sports league, or the basic functioning of the bloc for ASEAN).
You may ask why the size of
the ball is important. This issue has predominated American media for the past
week, as it pertains to the National Football League (NFL) there. The NFL commissioner (central office) sets
rules for the size and shape of footballs, even addressing their air
pressure. This is supposedly important
because it is believed that balls with lower air pressure are easier to handle. However, the league office is not responsible
for ensuring that balls are at the proper pressure; instead, the teams
themselves are responsible for administering the balls during games.
Hence the fury that erupted
when it was discovered that the
host New England Patriots had been using underinflated balls (a.k.a. “Deflategate”)
during last week’s playoff semifinal game with the Indianapolis Colts.
Supposedly this gave them an unfair advantage during the game, which was held
under adverse weather conditions, particularly because the other team did not
use underinflated balls. Whether this
actually affected the outcome is dubious because the Patriots won by an
overwhelming margin. Nevertheless, there
is major outrage among fans and players over a rules infraction by a team which
has been caught violating league rules in the past.
“Deflategate” shares some of
the characteristics of an ASEAN dispute.
Like the NFL, ASEAN has rules but the ASEAN Secretariat largely relies
on its constituent members to administer and implement AEC agreements. When a member state violates a rule, other
parties (e.g., investors) are most likely to raise the violation rather than
member states themselves; in “Deflategate” the losing team has not aggressively
pursued the matter with the NFL commissioner but the media and fans have kept
the issue alive.
However, the analogy begins
to break down here. In the NFL dispute,
the NFL Commissioner is empowered to investigate the rules infraction. The ASEAN Secretariat has no such powers and
must rely on self-reporting by its members.
The NFL Commissioner is authorized to impose penalties on the offending
party, such as fines or forfeiting draft picks, and will do so in all
likelihood, given the Patriots’ history of infractions. The ASEAN Secretariat has no such power of
sanctions.
The analogy begins to right
itself when you think of the probable ultimate resolution of
“Deflategate”. The NFL Commissioner will
investigate, but will likely limit his sanctions to a modest level, far from
ordering the forfeiture of the game or termination of Patriots’ management that
irate fans suggest. This reflects the
fact that ultimately the NFL Commissioner is an employee of the NFL team
owners, much like the ASEAN Secretariat is responsible to the ASEAN national
leaders. The NFL Commissioner is not
going to disrupt the league championship (Super Bowl) by imposing harsh
sanctions, just like the ASEAN Secretariat tries to be discreet in dealing with
member states. Furthermore, both organizations have more pressing issues that
need to be addressed (brain injuries in the NFL, environment, security and
other cross-border issues in ASEAN).
Nevertheless, the
“Deflategate” controversy shows the value of having rules that can be fully
enforced through investigations and sanctions.
Without such rules in American football, dissatisfied fans and team
owners could elect to break away and form their own leagues (this has happened
in the past), or even stop watching the games.
Having such rules dissipates negative sentiments and allows the overall
enterprise to develop. This is why the NFL Commissioner will
ultimately impose some sort of penalty, although likely in the off-season.
ASEAN potentially faces
similar pressures and stresses, as expectations for the ASEAN Community
heighten. That the ASEAN Secretariat has
less authority in its organizational context than a sports league central
office does in its context is not a good thing. Without strengthening the ASEAN institutions
to deal with the inevitable big and small issues that will arise, ASEAN risks
losing the confidence of investors, consumers and other economic actors in the
AEC, particularly if ASEAN member states repeatedly flout AEC commitments. Except in the case of ASEAN, there is more at
stake than deflated footballs; we are talking about the prosperity and
well-being of about 600 million people.
