AUGUST 5 — This week saw the region’s political leadership repeat its call for Asean unity. Singapore (the current Asean Chair) was particularly explicit in expressing the need to deepen regional co-operation in the face of increasing instability and nationalism in other parts of the world.

Both PM Lee Hsien Loong and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan speaking at the opening of the Asean foreign ministers’ meeting stressed the need for members of the 10-member bloc to deepen and extend their existing partnership.

"It is important that Asean continues to support the multilateral system and work with like-minded partners to deepen our web of co-operation,” said PM Lee.

We hear these calls for unity at every summit but what do they really mean?

For the PM, it seems to mean we should commit ourselves to a framework of economic co-operation with clear rules that allow for easier trade between Asean members.

The underlying idea is that if goods, raw materials, people and money can move more easily between regional nations our economies will grow, making us more prosperous.

This may seem like a simple win-win proposition, but it is not that simple. The reality is Asean comprises 10 very different nations and economies and each of these nations have all sorts of groups, businesses whose agendas differ wildly.

To make things more complex, the major powers the US, China, the EU, Japan and India all have different ideas in terms of what they want from us and their size ensures we have to pay attention to their competing interests.

Asean foreign ministers in Singapore for the Asean Ministerial Meeting (AMM) including Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah (second from left) take a picture with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (sixth from left). — Picture by AFP

The bottom line — one man’s free trade deal can be the end of another man’s business —and what makes Singapore happy might make Laos very unhappy etc.

To top it all, the very idea of Free Trade is now being challenged by powerful nationalist interests, particularly the US. 

US President Donald Trump and his supporters argue that Free Trade Deals have harmed the US with the easy movement of manufactured goods from abroad gutting US industries and harming US workers.

On this side of the world though, the Free Trade ideology remains king and the response to US by export dependent economies —China and Japan and even Singapore — has been to push for more intra-regional and international trade deals. 

The most ambitious of the initiative to galvanize the world’s free trade movement is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a free trade agreement between the 10 Asean member states and the nations with which Asean as a bloc has existing free trade agreements (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand).

If it does materialise (and seems increasingly likely it will) it would create a super bloc, representing 50 per cent of the world’s population and 40 per cent of the world GDP.

Of course, we’ve seen this sort of grand vision before. Remember the Trans-Pacific partnership — the US initiative supported by the Obama administration which was also intended to create a massive trade bloc.

That agreement flagged after Trump came to office leaving RCEP as the only alternative. If implemented, it could change our lives.

For one, Australian lamb will be cheaper and phone components might be made across Asean, thus creating jobs. These seem like good things but on the other hand, intellectual property components of the RCEP may mean that pharmaceutical copyrights prevent India and Thailand from making cheaper generic medicine. And while large companies will be able to manufacture across borders, what about small manufacturers in Malaysia and Thailand? How will they compete?

This is a common criticism of Free Trade... that it favours big companies. In the wake of the RCEP, Toyota could diversify its suppliers optimizing costs but for SMEs what’s the immediate benefit? It is not clear but Free Trade can be negotiated to deliver a range of benefits.

However, for that to happen the relevant parties need to know what is being negotiated. The core problem with the RCEP (and most major trade deals) is that most stakeholders — (such as us, the general public) — have no idea what is being discussed.

The lack of transparency means even parliamentarians are unaware of the details as select groups of technocrats negotiate most of them.

This begs the question: can we have Asean unity when Asean’s most important component, the people, haven’t been consulted?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.