2.2 The historical roots of conflict
The ASEAN region has been a region of conflict. In varying degrees, the six
member countries are continuing to experience social unrest born out of
conflicts over the use of natural resources and the distribution of the economic
product of this wealth. In the Philippines, a 12,000-man New People's Army (NPA)
guerrilla army led by the Communist Party has been a major thorn in the side of
the government, first to the Marcos regime and now to the Aquino administration,
and a hindrance to the consolidation of power in that country. There has been a
resurgence of land conflicts in Indonesia, raising the spectre of the pre-1965
agrarian unrest. In Malaysia, despite the low profile of the armed leftist
movement, the government feels insecure enough to continue its Internal Security
Act (ISA). Until recently, Thailand was the scene of various encounters between
government troops and a well-equipped leftist guerrilla movement.
A common characteristic of the region is its history of colonial or
semi-colonial rule. With the exception of Thailand, all of the ASEAN states
underwent a period of direct colonial rule, a process that transformed native
societies and incorporated their economies into a world capitalist system.
Thailand's signing of the Bowring Treaty in 1855 put it into a situation similar
to that of its colonized neighbours vis-à-vis the advanced Western nations
(Chiengkul, 1983: 30-1). Colonial economic policies were based on the systematic
plunder of the natural resources of the subjugated nations. The introduction of
Western concepts of property, including private ownership of land, engendered
major conflicts and was the cause of countless anticolonial revolts launched by
dispossessed peasants and ethnic groups. In the massive transfer of wealth
generated by natural resources from the colony to the colonial power,
nationalist elites also saw a justification for the launching of nation-wide
anti-colonial movements, which eventually gained independence for their peoples.
However, foreign exploitation of national resources did not end with the demise
of direct colonialism. The Philippines was forced to accept the 'parity'
agreement, by which American nationals were granted the right to exploit natural
resources with as much ease as Filipinos. Malaya's tin, rubber, and oil-palm
plantations continued to be controlled by the British long after the country
attained independence. Under Sukarno, Indonesia tried to reverse the pattern by
confiscating Dutch estates, but when he was toppled in 1966, his successor,
Suharto, opened the economy to foreign participation and influence (Palmer,
1978: 82-3). Thailand became increasingly dependent on the United States for
loans and investments. In short, the ending of colonialism did not result in the
Ulltyillg of the economies of the ASEAN region to the needs of the advanced
industrial capitalist states.
The issue of conflict over natural resources must be situated in the
political, social, and cultural contexts of the countries in which they occur,
in this case the ASEAN states. The region as a whole will be examined in this
chapter, but the emphasis will be on the
Philippines.