The history of the unification of Southeast Asian states into a regional economic and political bloc dates back to the events that took place at the very end of World War II. Then, in the wake of the struggle for independence and against colonial rule, such prominent figures of national liberation movements as Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and Aung San in Burma called for the unification of all states in the region to resist the attempts of the former metropolises to regain control of them.

After declaring Vietnam's independence and becoming the country's president, Ho Chi Minh immediately appealed to the leader of the Indonesian revolution, Sukarno, who at the same time declared Indonesia's independence and became its president, with a proposal to create a Southeast Asian cooperation organization to jointly defend national independence. In October 1945, the leader of the Burmese revolution, Aung San, invited representatives of the national liberation forces of neighboring countries to hold an Asian conference to work out collective actions to win political independence. In 1947. He made a proposal to create an organization of the Asian commonwealth consisting of Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya, Indonesia and Thailand. At the same time, it was planned to form this association of Asian states on a left-wing, anti-imperialist and anti-colonial platform. Nationalism, Asian solidarity and socialism were to become the ideological foundation of the proposed union. However, in the future, the tragic death of Aung San in 1947. the defeat of left-wing pro-communist forces in most countries of the region, the long struggle for independence in Vietnam and the subsequent division of the country put an end to the idea of uniting Southeast Asia on the basis of anti-imperialist and socialist ideas and views for a long time.

Once again, the idea of uniting the countries of the region into a single bloc was actualized only ten years later in connection with the formation of the Malay Federation. In the face of confrontation with neighboring Indonesia, the new state, which was born with the support of the British, tried to smooth out and ease the heat of sharply strained relations with Jakarta, where President Sukarno sharply opposed his birth, by putting forward unifying initiatives. The left-leaning Indonesian President saw the machinations of the imperialists, who sought to maintain their position in the region in this way, in the very fact of uniting the Malay sultanates dependent on the British on an openly right-wing anti-communist basis. The Indonesian Foreign Ministry regarded all these statements about unification as" the desire of the SEATO ¹ member countries to build a bridge to the countries that are not part of it " [Maletin, 2007, p.11]. In contrast to the policy of Indonesia,

¹ A pro-American bloc of States created in 1954 to fight the spread of communist ideas in Asia.

The Malay leadership ² sought to form a bloc of regional States that would support the birth of a Federation and act as a counterbalance to Indonesian claims. Since the spring of 1958, Kuala Lumpur has been inviting neighboring Southeast Asian countries to convene a conference to discuss the prospects of creating a regional organization consisting of Malaya, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam. Such an association should have been based on the idea of collective opposition to " advancing communism." This idea did not receive significant support at the time. In 1959, the Federation of Malaya, taking the Philippines as its ally, called for the creation of the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization on Friendship and Economic Cooperation (SEAFET) [Bangkok World, 23.12.1958]. President of the Philippines Carlos Garcia called for "calling on the free democratic countries of Asia to unite against the penetration of communism in Southeast Asia." Participants were expected to include Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Malaya, Thailand, the Philippines, and South Vietnam. It was thought that the basis of this association should have been not so much political as economic interests. However, like the previous proposal of the Malay leadership, this unifying project did not receive broad support. Given the extremely low level of economic development and economies of the same type in their structure, which did not so much complement each other as compete with each other on the international market, few people could believe in the benefits of unification.

Indonesia noted that " within the framework of Southeast Asia, there is a well-established orientation of the economy towards certain foreign markets, both in the sale of raw materials and in the import of industrial goods, including semi-finished products. ...The economies of these countries are not mutually complementary, but rather mutually invulnerable. Therefore, it is clear that there is an objective tendency not to cooperate, but to compete" [Khaldin, 1983, p. 17]. "The differences in economic conditions," another Indonesian source noted, " lie in the levels of development, in the availability of resources available in the respective Southeast Asian countries, which inevitably creates certain difficulties in cooperation. Such differences are fraught with the potential danger of economic conflicts and competition " [ibid.].

However, despite the failures in attempts to unite the countries of Southeast Asia, the idea of unity of this region continued to be very popular among politicians and representatives of the intellectual elites of its member countries. Therefore, in 1960, a new project of association was proposed - the Association of Southeast Asian Countries (ASA). It also turned out to be a failure, because, as it turned out, none of the Southeast Asian countries wanted to finance it. All these failures in the formation of a regional organization were caused by two fundamental factors: the lack of a common unifying idea - for what it is necessary to unite, because integration only for the sake of opposing communism was not supported by many countries, including the largest country in the region - Indonesia; the lack of interest of Western powers in integrating non-communism.-

² Malaya is a polysemous word. In physical geography, it is the southern tip of the Malacca Peninsula. In history, "British Malaya" is a generalized name for a set of British colonies (Straits Settlements) that existed in the XVIII-XX centuries and were under the protection of Great Britain formally independent Federal States of Malaya. It was later transformed into the Malay Union. Today it is the western part of Malaysia. The term "British Malaya" was never used in official documents. The Japanese invasion of the Malacca Peninsula took place on December 8, 1941. After the Japanese surrender, the British returned to Malaya and proposed a plan for the creation of a Malay Union. The Malay part of the population reacted sharply to this. In March 1946, the United Malay National Organization was established, the first Malay political association to operate nationwide. The Malay Union proved unviable, and on 1 February 1948 it was replaced by the Federation of Malaya (1948-1963). National minorities felt humiliated. The Malay Chinese believed that justice could only be achieved with the help of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). In July 1948, the CPM began an armed struggle with the British colonial Government. The British authorities declared a state of emergency in the country. The situation stabilized in the 1950s, but the state of emergency was lifted only in 1960.

South-Eastern European countries. The second Indochina War, which turned Southeast Asia into one of the centers of world politics where the interests of great powers converged, was just beginning, and the region itself was still on the periphery of the cold war. The failure of the integration projects showed only that neither at the intraregional level nor at the extra-regional level there were any special prospects for consolidation in the region at that time.

Having failed to achieve tangible results in the integration of the entire region, the most developed and westernized countries - Malaysia, ³ the Philippines, and Thailand-tried to organize a narrow regional association with the same name - ASA - in 1961. The basis here was to serve as a common model of development chosen by them with a focus on the West and a tough opposition to any communist ideas and organizations. The creation of the new association was initiated by the Prime Minister of Malaya A. Rahman4, who in 1959 put forward the idea of a regional organization in Southeast Asia, uniting all the countries of the region, with the exception of the DRV.

The charter of the organization proposed by him was determined to "create a solid foundation for joint actions for further economic and social progress in Southeast Asia" [Xuto, 1973, p. 21]. The highest body of this Association is the annual conferences of foreign Ministers of the participating countries. In comparison with the previous projects of the association, the ACA concept proved to be significantly more successful. During the first two years of its activity, its participants identified about 30 objects of sub-regional cooperation, established a fund in the amount of $ 3 million. The United States, which consisted of equal contributions from member countries ($1 million each), and created a management mechanism for the organization.

At the same time, this international organization was unable to attract other countries of the region to its membership, primarily Indonesia, which suspected the Association members of actually promoting the interests of the United States and Great Britain and objectively acting against the independence of the Southeast Asian countries. In addition, in 1963-1966, the Association's activities were completely paralyzed by the acute conflict between Malaysia and the Philippines over the ownership of Sabah. As Malaysian Foreign Minister M. Shafie later noted, "The Association was not successful because of its narrow political goals" (Shane, 1981, p. 4). This remark of the Malaysian Minister is quite true, because when the Association was established (1961), it was announced that it would not deal with political issues. It was only mentioned that it should be used to provide "friendly consultations on cooperation and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural and scientific fields" in order to "achieve closer relations between the countries concerned and a better understanding between the peoples of Southeast Asia" [Bangkok World, 01.08.1961].

Despite the declared noble goals, the failure of this project also exposed serious obstacles to the establishment of regional economic and political cooperation and the formation of a viable regional organization. The main thing was that Indonesia, the largest country in Southeast Asia, did not participate in it, which at that time continued to speak out from anti - Western positions and was more likely to lean towards the socialist camp than the Western countries. At this time, Jakarta, in connection with the crisis in the Association's activities due to the territorial claims of the Philippines to Malaya, tried to take the initiative of unification into its own hands and create an organization that would include countries with a predominantly Malay population. In 1963. Indonesia, Malaya and the Philippines have created the Mafilindo Organization for economic cooperation,

³ Established in 1963.

⁴ In January 1956, he led a delegation to negotiate with the British Government in London for the immediate granting of Malaya's internal self-government and eventual independence. After the declaration of independence on August 31, 1957, he remained at the head of the Government, taking up the posts of Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federation of Malaya (since 1963 - Malaysia).

culture and defense. But this organization's century of existence was also short. All attempts to establish cooperation were torpedoed by sharp contradictions between the participating countries in connection with the creation of the Federation of Malaysia (September 1963). Indonesia opposed this process in every possible way, including military operations. The situation has become so tense that even a military conflict between the two states has become real. Mafilindo was no longer mentioned when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was born in 1967. By the way, three weeks after the establishment of ASEAN, the Association established in 1961 officially dissolved itself, and the new regional organization assumed all the functions of the liquidated association.

The poor experience of regional cooperation in Southeast Asia in the 1950s and 1960s showed that there were many political obstacles in the way of this cooperation. The newly independent states were guided by the ideas of nationalism and were extremely sensitive to any steps that seemed to them to encroach on political sovereignty. The colonial past left them a legacy of a backward economy, in which the development of economic cooperation had no special prospects. The import-substituting economic model chosen by them, where the main emphasis was placed on the development of the public sector, foreign investment caused distrust as an option for possible new enslavement, and the domestic market was protected by high duties, did not contribute to cooperation. There was also a certain agricultural uniformity of their economies, which often led to intense mutual competition on world markets and conflicts.

At the same time, ideas disseminated through the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ECADC), which was active in the region, were becoming increasingly popular. This organization deliberately ignored issues of politics and ideology and focused on issues of establishing economic cooperation. Moreover, it promoted what would later be called the export-oriented economy model, because its representatives advocated reducing export-import tariffs, creating favorable conditions for foreign investment, developing the intraregional market and cooperation between the Southeast Asian countries. This approach to integration has attracted these countries with its efficiency. EKADW experts tried to break the ice of suspicion about foreign investment, promoting the idea of priority development of export-oriented sectors of the economy. Subsequently, ASEAN believed that it was precisely ECADW that "made the greatest contribution to creating the spirit of regional cooperation in Southeast Asia" [Khaldin, p.15]. The founders of ASEAN used this positive experience of ECADW as a basis for the creation of a new regional organization.

The significant changes that radically changed the political landscape of Southeast Asia in the first half of the 1960s also gave an important impetus to continuing the search for ways of regional integration and the creation of ASEAN. These changes were caused by several factors. The first was that the second Indochina war and the American intervention in Vietnam were becoming increasingly widespread and violent, and the second was connected with the change of the political regime in Indonesia after the events of September 1965, when power in the country passed from President Sukarno, a "fighter against imperialism", to a staunch anti-communist General Suharto. The third factor was caused by the impact of the "Chinese cultural revolution" on the region, China's support for pro-communist guerrilla groups in all countries, and, accordingly, the sharp intensification of their struggle to overthrow existing political regimes.

The effect of all these factors significantly affected the situation. As part of the Indochina War, for example. Thailand and the Philippines sent their military units to participate in military operations in South Vietnam on the side of the United States and provided

its territory for American bases that served military operations against the DRV and the associated National Liberation Front of South Vietnam. Singapore actually became the logistics base of the American Expeditionary Force. Malaysia and Indonesia (after 1965) tacitly and sometimes openly supported the US Vietnam policy.

In the face of a long and bloody war, in which the United States faced both the persistence of the Vietnamese communists and the huge support they received from the USSR and China, Washington decided to unite the efforts of its allies in the region. At the same time, the unfortunate fate of the SEATO ⁵ military bloc, which never became the core of American influence in the region, as well as the obvious reluctance of the ruling circles of the allied countries to join a new military alliance, led the US leadership to think that it would be more convenient to form a new bloc not on the basis of military cooperation, but political interaction. At that time, there was quite a lively discussion in Washington, numerous projects were put forward, some of which provided for the "neutralization" of Southeast Asia, others outlined ways of rapprochement with China, and others proposed the creation of new pro-Western military and political organizations there. "It would be good," noted the American political scientist R. Fifield in 1963, " if the United States began to look for ways to change some of the foundations of its military policy in Southeast Asia. In the light of the changing situation, the non-communist countries of the region should commit themselves to the creation of a collective security treaty. All Southeast Asian countries from the Philippines to Burma and Indonesia should join it. ...Given the national feelings of its participants, the treaty could be called the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). ...Although the United States would not be part of the proposed Southeast Asia security treaty, it could promise to use its armed forces, at the request of ASEAN members, to protect and protect its members in the event of armed aggression from outside. Moreover, Washington can limit its assistance to providing it only in the event of aggression by communist powers, and will not be obliged to participate in military operations if they are unleashed by non-communist states "[Cit. in: Problems of the Far East, 1977, N 2, p. 81].

Thus, a new factor has emerged in the process of uniting the states of the region: the desire of the United States to find ways to unite its allies - the non-communist states of Southeast Asia-into a single bloc. The Americans said they would be ready to support efforts to create a new regional and pro-Western organization. However, the mere desire of the United States to create a bloc of countries that supported Washington's policy in the region was clearly not enough, because the factors that prevented unification earlier continued to operate. Differences in the levels of economic development remained particularly profound. "There are a number of differences in interests between the Southeast Asian countries, which are explained by the conditions of historical development. A number of differences can be identified, for example, in the system of governance and economic interests, which sometimes lead to differences in political views. There are differences in the defense system between the Southeast Asian countries, resulting from the development and construction of the defense and security forces." 28.10.1975]. Philippine experts described the same problem as follows: "First, there was a fundamental economic mismatch between the four major markets of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand and the cro market-

⁵ SEATO-Southeast Asian Treaty Organization. The SEATO Block was created on September 8, 1954, as a result of the signing of the Manila Treaty. It consisted of Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, Pakistan (until 1973), the United States, Thailand, the Philippines, France (until 1974), South Korea, and South Vietnam (until 1975). After the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, SEATO's authority plummeted. The Bloc was dissolved by mutual agreement of the participating countries on June 30, 1977.

⁶. The first four countries had substantial natural resources, and Singapore had a highly developed and well-regulated industrial and commercial infrastructure. Many of the main products of the ASEAN countries did not complement each other, and the states competed with each other in world markets for such goods as tin, palm and coconut oil, and timber. In addition, the trade infrastructure of the first four countries with their colonial history remained dominated by the former metropolises. However, perhaps the most serious obstacles were the political differences between some countries and the resulting mutual distrust " [ASEAN. An Economic..., 1978, p. 15].

These differences seriously complicated the development of even bilateral interstate relations of the "five" countries. In the mid-1960s, they were not easy. The Philippines disputed Malaysia's rights to Sabah and tried unsuccessfully to suppress a Muslim separatist movement in the south of the country.

There were also territorial tensions between Malaysia and Thailand. Finally, Indonesia did not recognize the Federation of Malaysia formed in 1963 and launched a broad campaign of confrontation with it. Economic relations between Indonesia and Singapore have also worsened. In such a situation, it seemed extremely problematic not only to achieve the creation of a region-wide organization, but also to achieve stability in bilateral relations.

However, these contradictions did not outweigh the common Association of countries with an anti-communist orientation and an alliance with Washington. According to the Asian press, at the time of the Association's creation, its members were united by nothing but a common anti-communist ideology. Propaganda of communist ideas was officially banned, communist parties were outlawed and deprived of the right to legal activity. In addition, each of the five countries had their own political motivations for joining the Association. By the mid-1960s, pro-communist guerrilla movements had sharply intensified in Malaysia and Thailand. They put on the agenda the question of the armed overthrow of the ruling regimes. Through closer cooperation with neighboring countries, the Governments of Malaysia and Thailand hoped to strengthen coordination in suppressing guerrilla movements. Singapore was interested in establishing good neighborly relations with its neighbors, since the revenues from intermediary trade with them accounted for an impressive share of its gross national product and their possible loss seemed to Singapore an irreparable loss. In the Philippines, there was also a problem with the growth of the pro-communist guerrilla movement.

All these "pros" and "cons" of unification would have remained roughly equal for a long time, if not for the events in Indonesia, which turned the entire geopolitical map of the region upside down. As a result of the failed leftist coup in October 1965 and the subsequent brutal defeat of the Indonesian Communist Party - the third largest in the world - army generals seized power in the country, strongly anti-communist. Once in power, in the wake of the anti-communist campaign, they began to assert themselves as an anti-communist force on a regional scale, capable of launching a pre-emptive strike against communist forces outside Indonesia if necessary. General Suharto's regime, which succeeded Sukarno and brutally defeated the country's communist forces, was itself in a state of certain foreign policy isolation and needed urgent international recognition. The Indonesian generals did not yet feel confident, but they were already harboring ambitious plans for Indonesia's leadership in the fight against communism in Southeast Asia. At that time, Jakarta signed bilateral agreements with Malaysia and Thailand to combat terrorism.

⁶ In 1965, after the creation of the Federation of Malaysia, which in addition to Malaya included the Malay-populated areas of Sabah and Sarwak, Singapore. The latter, due to the complex racial relations in the Federation and the confrontation between the Malay minority and the Chinese majority, was forced to withdraw from its membership.

with the Philippines and Malaysia - on joint patrol operations in coastal waters and control of the Strait of Malacca. Indonesia, led by General Suharto, resolutely followed the anti-communist path, declaring itself almost the main force in the fight against the spread of communism in the region. In terms of its scale, influence, and activity in the fight against communism, this country has become the vanguard of the anti-communist bloc in Southeast Asia.

As we can see, the changes in Indonesia and the emergence of an anti-communist regime created the political basis for a new stage of regional unification, this time on a common anti-communist platform. The proposal to unite on this basis was all the more relevant because at that time, due to the revolutionary calls from Beijing, where the "cultural revolution" was gaining momentum, the anti-communist orientation of domestic and foreign policy common to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore became particularly important. In China, they called on the Southeast Asian Communists to step up their fight against the ruling regimes, promised them material and military support, on the basis of which not only pro-communist agitation sharply increased in all countries of the region, but also communist detachments and combat groups that had been hiding in hard-to-reach places for a long time became noticeably more active. The "people's war" ideas they adopted, coupled with solid financial support from abroad, seemed to reanimate the communist movement in the five countries.

Threats related to the activation of pro-Chinese and pro-communist groups and parties raised concerns among the ruling elites, and pushed the governments of the five countries to move even closer to the United States, as they began to see Washington as a guarantor against possible external interference in their internal affairs. The struggle for survival against a common enemy has united the Governments of the non-communist countries of region ⁷ and provided them with common goals and interests. The need for unification has become obvious even to those who have long opposed it.

According to Asian experts, one of the main motives for the creation of ASEAN was precisely the desire of the ruling circles of the "five" countries to jointly suppress the internal communist opposition. In addition, they understood that all possible members of the future Association were neighboring countries, some of them had common borders, and actions against rebel movements would be more effective if actions were coordinated against them. All these considerations led future ASEAN members to believe that their ultimate survival as non-communist states" depends to a large extent on the creation of an alliance for closer cooperation on issues of mutual interest, including bilateral measures against insurgent movements " [ASEAN Economies..., 1980, p. 323].

The view that it was factors related to the need for a common struggle against the communist threat that became the decisive impetus for unification is also confirmed by a well-known Malaysian author, who argued that "initially, the creation of ASEAN was mainly driven not by economic motives, but by political and security considerations" (Arief, 1978, p. 13).. A similar point of view was expressed in Thailand, where it was noted that " the security aspect was the main consideration and an important motive for the creation of ASEAN thirteen years ago "[Asset, 29.09.1980, p. 38]. This fact was also recognized by experts of the ASEAN countries, who argued that "ASEAN in 1967" was mainly a political grouping that contributed to stability in the Association's member countries, although economic cooperation was not excluded. Since one of the primary problems of all five countries was the insurgency, which aimed to overthrow existing Governments by armed struggle, there was no need to fight back.-

⁷ Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines.

⁸ At the time of its formation.

it is difficult to understand why the Bangkok Declaration ⁹ placed so much emphasis on ensuring peace and security" [Economic Problems..., 1977, p. 17].

The initiators of the unification of all the countries of Southeast Asia that opposed communism into a regional bloc, as one might expect, were the Indonesian authorities. Their proposal was not immediately supported. Only after a year of discussions and continuous consultations between the Governments of the five countries on the very possibility and forms of the future association did the main goals and structures of the organization of the future regional bloc gradually begin to emerge. At the same time, efforts were being made to normalize Indonesia's bilateral diplomatic relations with Malaysia and Singapore and ease tensions between Malaysia and the Philippines. In the spring of 1965, the two countries resumed diplomatic relations. A little later, on August 11, 1966, the foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Malaysia signed the Jakarta Agreement "on the Renunciation of hostile acts" and reached an agreement on joint actions against communist insurgents on the border [Maletin, 2007, p. 21]. When the end of the confrontation with Singapore was announced, the path to the formation of a new regional union was opened. After that, diplomatic negotiations were aimed at developing a platform for the new organization, taking into account the existing differences and contradictions between the five countries. Thailand was active, and in the midst of consultations in mid-1966, it sent Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines a draft agreement on the establishment of a new regional organization, which was not supported, because, in essence, it did not differ much from the ACA charter.

It is noteworthy that the initiators of the creation of ASEAN during the initial consultations did not want to include Singapore in its founders. However, given Singapore's considerable economic opportunities, its high involvement in regional economic relations, and the insistent requests of the Singapore administration, it was finally decided to accept it [Khaldin, 1983, p.22]. At the final stage of preparatory work, representatives of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines held three-day closed-door talks in Pattaya (Thailand), where they agreed on a draft joint declaration on the establishment of the Association. Following these consultations, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia stressed that the Southeast Asian countries need to unite to prevent external interference and intervention. Singapore's Foreign Minister pointed out that small Asian countries will not succumb to provocations from external powers. The Indonesian Foreign Minister stated that his country's desire has always been to achieve the independence of the Southeast Asian peoples in the fight against "negative non-regional forces" [The Straits Times, 9.08.1967].

As we can see, even at the time of the founding of ASEAN, the founding countries interpreted the new organization not only as an instrument of economic, cultural and social cooperation, but also as a means of countering external pressure. They were already giving the Association quite specific political functions in order to create a peaceful and free from all external influence and pressure Southeast Asia [ASEAN in the system..., 1993, p. 33] In August 1967, the founding conference of ASEAN was held in Bangkok. It ended with the signing of a Declaration by the Foreign Ministers of the five founding countries on August 8, 1967, which declared ASEAN a functioning organization.

In the first official comments on the creation of the new association, its founders stated that "ASEAN is an original, truly regional organization, established by five member countries after the failure of previous similar efforts: ASA, Mafilindo and other similar organizations." They also argued that " ASEAN is not a military alliance or a security agreement, because the founding countries have not made any commitments to provide assistance to another State."

⁹ Foundational document of the new block.

to a Member State in the event of an external threat or military invasion." It was also noted that "the Association arose as a result of the spontaneous desire of the participating countries without incitement from any external force" [Department..., 1974, p. 4-6]. All these statements did not quite correspond to reality, but this is exactly how the participants of the new association wanted to see the events that were taking place. It is interesting that at the same time, the idea of uniting on the basis of anti-communism began to be supplemented by the ideas of regionalism and the desire to show everyone that the new organization is not a pro-American puppet entity, but serves the goals of its member countries, which is reflected in the ASEAN Declaration adopted in Bangkok [Bangkok Declaration..., 1967].

The preamble referred to the existence of mutual interests and common problems of the Southeast Asian countries, expressed the conviction of the need to further strengthen existing ties, regional solidarity and cooperation, and emphasized the collective desire of the participating countries to create a solid base for joint actions to ensure the development of the region in the spirit of equality and partnership. The document went on to state that "the ideals of peace, freedom, social justice and economic well-being are best served by strengthening mutual understanding, good neighborliness and expanding cooperation between partners already linked by diverse cultural and historical ties." It was pointed out that "the Southeast Asian countries bear the main responsibility for strengthening the economic and social stability of the region and ensuring its peaceful and progressive national development, and it is they who must ensure stability and security from external interference in all forms and manifestations in order to preserve their national identity in accordance with the ideals and aspirations of their peoples".

In the last paragraph of the preamble, representatives of the five Southeast Asian countries pointed out the temporary nature of the presence of foreign military bases in the Association's area of activity. Thus, the status of US military bases located in the Philippines and Thailand, as well as British military bases in Malaysia and Singapore, was changed, and this came as an unpleasant surprise to Washington. ¹⁰

The main text of the declaration consisted of five articles. The first one stated the very fact of creating an Association. South-East Asia was declared the area of activity of the new organization.

The second article of the declaration sets out the goals and intentions of the new organization:

"1. Accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region by working together in a spirit of equality and partnership to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peace-loving community of Southeast Asian nations.

2. Promote peace and stability in the region, respecting justice and the rule of law in relations between the Southeast Asian countries and respecting the principles of the UN Charter.

3. Promote active cooperation and mutual assistance in the economy, social security, culture, technology, science and administration, and issues of common interest.

4. Provide mutual assistance in training personnel and providing research results in the field of education, technology and administrative management.

5. Cooperate more effectively with each other to make better use of agriculture and industry, and expand trade, including through the study of issues related to agricultural development.

¹⁰ In the early 1970s, at the initiative of Malaysia, the Association called for the" neutralization " of Southeast Asia. On November 28, 1971, five ASEAN Foreign Ministers signed a declaration in Kuala Lumpur calling for the establishment of a "zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in the region, free from any form of interference by external Powers." The USSR gave a positive assessment of the initiative of Malaysia. L. I. Brezhnev, in particular, noted: "A lot of interesting initiatives are being born, inspired by concern for the peaceful future of Asia, such as the idea of neutralizing Southeast Asia." Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences G. I. Chufrin wrote that " the first large-scale joint political action that immediately caused a loud international response was the ASEAN declaration on the creation of a "zone of peace, freedom and neutrality"in Southeast Asia.

international trade in selected goods, improving transport and communication capabilities, and improving the standard of living of their peoples.

6. Promote the study of Southeast Asian issues.

7. Establish close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional organizations with similar goals and objectives, and explore all avenues for closer cooperation among ASEAN member countries."

The third article of the declaration is devoted to the characteristics of the organizational mechanism of the Association. Annual conferences of foreign ministers, or ministerial conferences, were announced as the highest body of ASEAN, which should meet alternately in the capitals of the "five"countries. If urgent and important political issues need to be discussed, special conferences of foreign Ministers may be convened.

In the intervals between ministerial conferences, the Association's activities are managed by a standing committee chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the host country of the last ministerial conference. In addition to the Chairman, the standing committee includes ambassadors of other member countries of the Association accredited in this country. The Standing committee should meet several times a year.

At the same time, by the decision of the ministerial conference, committees and special committees were created from among specialists and officials of relevant departments to develop and solve problems of regional cooperation. The Declaration did not provide for the number of committees or their structure. This link in the ASEAN organizational mechanism swelled very quickly, and by the time of the reorganization, ¹¹ was represented by 11 committees and 4 ad hoc committees. In addition, a national secretariat has been established in each member country of the Association to perform all functions related to the activities of ASEAN and to serve regular and special ministerial conferences, meetings of the Standing Committee and other bodies of the Association.

The fourth article of the declaration stated that " the Association is open for membership to all Southeast Asian countries that share the above goals, principles and intentions." This was a very important point, which showed that from the very moment of the creation of ASEAN, the founders hoped to turn it into a region-wide one.

Finally, the fifth article of the declaration stated that " the Association expresses the collective will of the peoples of Southeast Asia to undertake joint commitments to build friendship and cooperation and, through joint efforts and sacrifices, to guarantee these peoples and their descendants the benefits of peace, freedom and prosperity."

In an effort to emphasize the equal nature of the Association, its founders agreed to strictly adhere to the principle of consensus when making decisions - a method of drafting and adopting international acts with the general consent of interested States, which has actually become one of the fundamental organizational principles of ASEAN. All decisions within the Association should be made only with the consent of all five countries. If there are contradictions on the issues under discussion, working discussions are held, during which their participants must find a compromise solution. If a compromise cannot be reached, then the disputed issue should be further worked out and agreed upon.

In fact, every member state of ASEAN received the right of veto, although such a right was not formally recorded in the documents of the new organization. It was noted that "each country has one vote in the voting process".

The principles of equality and consensus that underpin decision-making have been the foundation of a slow but steady progress towards gradual cooperation across the group. With an attempt to revise these principles in 1981.

¹¹ Bali Conference, 1976

Singapore took the floor, saying that "if four countries agree and one country does not object to an event, it can still qualify as a consensus, and four out of five countries can continue to implement the new regional scheme." However, this initiative was not supported [FEER..., 1981, p. 61-62].

ASEAN has emerged as a result of overlapping intra-regional processes with extra-regional challenges. Having emerged with the approval of the United States and Great Britain as a counterweight to the pro-communist regimes that were more or less oriented towards the USSR, it soon moved away from participating in direct confrontation between the systems, and this predetermined its existence as an active player in the international arena. The formation of ASEAN has led to the emergence of a core group of Southeast Asian countries that have officially committed themselves to maintaining regional cooperation. Moreover, for the first time, this core group of five countries was able to clearly claim the right to represent the interests of Southeast Asia as a region in terms of its area, population and resources" [Xuto, 1973, p. 47]. These words of a well-known Thai expert quite adequately reflected the changed reality: a new entity appeared in Southeast Asia, which claimed a dominant role in this region.

list of literature

ASEAN in the System of International Political Relations, Moscow, 1993.

Maletin N. P. ASEAN: Four Decades of Development, Moscow, 2007.

Problems of the Far East. 1977. N 2.

Khaldin M. A. ASEAN without Illusions, Moscow, 1983.

Arief M. Malaysia and ASEAN Economic Cooperation. Bangkok, 1978.

ASEAN. An Economic Profile. 1978. Manila, 1978.

ASEAN Economies in Transition. Singapore, 1980.

Asset. 29.09.1980.

Bangkok Declaration 8 August 1967 // Bangkok Post. 09.08.1967.

Bangkok World 23.12.1958.

Department of Foreign Affairs ASEAN National Secretariat of Indonesia, ASEAN. Jakarta, 1974.

Economic Problems and Prospects in ASEAN Countries. Singapore, 1977.

FEER Asia Yearbook 1981. Hongkong, 1981.

Indonesia Times. 28.10.1975.

Shafie M.G. ASEAN Contributor to Stability and Development. Kuala-Lumpur, 1981.

The Straits Times. 9.08.1967.

Xuto S. Regional Cooperation in South-East Asia. Problems, Possibilities and Prospects. Bangkok, 1973.

Permanent link to this publication: