The news did not attract a great deal of attention, but if the origins of ASEAN are considered and what its members are capable of in such minor affairs if they join forces, it becomes clear that there is an important lesson here that Hungarians could learn.

If in a computer strategy game one was to bring together an oil sultanate, a patriarchal city state, two unstable republics, two kingdoms that are frequently beset by coups, two communist dictatorships, a military junta and a strange federal monarchy, little good could be expected of it. If the game was exacerbated further by adding that the listed countries include a state with the highest Muslim population in the world, a few Buddhist countries and a Catholic stronghold as well as a list of various sectarian communities, constant conflict appears inevitable. And if one throws in disputed borders, national minorities and an extremely bloody history by global comparison (although there are other strong contenders), it would be pretty certain that if the player took a coffee break from the game, the little red, blue and other coloured soldiers could be counted on to take the opportunity to slaughter each other on the monitor.

In this kind of situation two factors can prevent the prolongation of an “everybody against everybody” state of affairs: a common enemy, or a relatively intellectual elite which realises that it is better to do business than to turn a whole region into a blood bath.

The inhabitants of Southeast Asia were actually lucky that in the 1960s both conditions were given. At the time China had not embarked upon its course of panda diplomacy but was instead busy exporting revolution and there was more than enough demand in the troubled region for Mao’s ideals. The experiment that was communism put fear into the region’s leaders who realised that they would be better off ensuring their legitimacy and prosperity with stability and economic development – albeit not necessarily on a democratic basis. For example, it is far more pleasant to play golf on an 18-hole luxury golf course than on a minefield, so the leaders also had a personal motive. In light of this, in 1967 the leaders of five countries founded ASEAN, the chief objective of which was to resolve conflict through negotiation. There was no love lost between the founders: at the time Malaysia was locked in dispute with the Philippines over a territory the size of Czechoslovakia; Indonesia had deployed paramilitary units to destabilize Malaysia and Singapore; Singapore had been expelled from the Federation of Malaysia, while Thailand had a poisonous relationship with Malaysia because of the Malays who lived on its territory. However, the association still came into being and the founding fathers are very proud that since then no wars have broken out between the members of ASEAN.

Over time political aims were replaced by economic ones. The organisation was joined by Brunei, followed by Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Cambodia. It therefore became more colourful: joint projects were agreed upon between party state-secretary and sultan, and between Singapore’s Mentor Minister and kings and military dictators. The objective was simply economic integration, spurred on by external challenges: Chinese communism was replaced by Chinese trinkets and laptop dumping, and India’s rapid growth has been  threatening to squeeze the region into the background. The process of homogenisation is therefore unavoidable; however, leadership imposed from above remains the norm: the region’s 580 million inhabitants were not really asked if they wanted to share in a common goal – though in this part of the world it would be strange if they had been. The main point is for a unified market to develop which will be able to compete with giant rivals – and according to the present plans this economic community will indeed come into being by 2015.

Admittedly the model of integration for ASEAN is the EU: Hungarians are prone to regard the European Union as a failure, but seen from outside we have achieved enviable success. It is much better to fight for our rights by wading through paperwork in a Brussels office than by fighting in a trench – it is easy for us to forget this but for a Vietnam veteran or a survivor of a Cambodian death camp, the former perspective is indeed attractive. And we, the inhabitants of Eastern Central Europe, could learn something from ASEAN: our differences and common injuries are laughably small in comparison to those of the people who live in their countries, and if they are capable of cooperating, there is hope that we will get over our own divisions.