A

lthough Thailand's red-shirted protestors weren't able to achieve political change last week, they succeeded in humiliating the country's leadership.

They managed to halt the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and ASEAN-Related Summit meetings, forcing the evacuation of many attendees. This was more than just an embarrassment for Thailand, which currently holds the chairmanship of ASEAN. It highlights once again ASEAN weaknesses.

Perhaps, though, the problem is that our expectations of ASEAN are simply too high. We want to see ASEAN as the leader of East Asian regionalism. It's also a way to keep China, Japan, and India in check; none of these states would be particularly pleased about the other's predominance in the region.

And so, a unity of the underdogs appeals to American desire to invite and preserve what we think is better balance in the region. We have our hopes pegged on the notion that the whole of ASEAN is greater - much greater - than the sum of its parts.

Certainly, ASEAN has come a long way since 1967. Its "soft power" has diminished regional tensions and promoted dialogue among its members, and it has some potential to serve as a model and a stimulus for broader regional integration in East Asia. ASEAN has reduced trade barriers and helped take a few steps towards region-wide economic integration. Frustrations with the West in the 1997 financial crisis engendered a sense of Asian identity and regional cohesion. Especially in times like now, when fears of protectionism run rampant, multilateral economic institutions encourage some degree of accountability.

But to expect much from ASEAN beyond these accomplishments is wishful thinking. ASEAN has generated a meeting industry that has had some success in international diplomatic endeavors. The fundamental problem, however, is that ASEAN has failed to address the challenges in its own backyard. It is composed of mostly weak states that may be getting weaker.

Myanmar has long been cited as the extreme example of the varying degrees of political and economic development among ASEAN member states. Military dictatorship, human rights abuses, drug trade, trafficking, environmental crisis, and acute poverty have characterized the country. While most ASEAN countries are deeply distressed with Myanmar in its midst, they can do little about it.

Myanmar, however, is not as much of an outlier as we'd like to believe. Authoritarian dominated Laos and Cambodia, compete with Myanmar for low rankings on the Human Development Index. Vietnam has a bright future, but dictatorship persists and hinders growth. The Philippines remains a corrupt democracy, of sorts, with lots of elections but too little real governance. Malaysia has had impressive growth but is again showing deepening political divisions. Indonesia has pulled itself together in recent years and the latest elections have been deemed successful. Yet, it remains a largely impoverished country.

The region has also been hit by another crippling economic crisis. Singapore, the most successful of ASEAN nations, expects a 6 to 9 percent contraction in its economy this year, the worst in 40 years.

The prospects in the rest of ASEAN countries are also difficult and underline their dependence on wealthier countries like China, which has announced plans to establish a $10 billion investment cooperation fund and $15 billion in credit to ASEAN countries. ASEAN countries, themselves, have not shown much cooperation in addressing today's economic adversity.

And now Thailand, one of the pillars of ASEAN and once an Asian tiger, is creaking badly. Its upheaval the past few years should send a warning signal to those who place great stock in its ASEAN role. Thailand has little cohesive democratic leadership and it is not clear how that will improve; the army, remarkably keeps rolling itself out but is certainly no answer.

The competing red-shirts and yellow-shirts, and now the new pro-government blue-shirts aren't the only divisions Prime Minister Abhisit has to worry about; he's got a growing insurgency in the south which has been increasingly overlooked by "insurgency" in Bangkok.

We haven't seen the end of political and economic turmoil in Thailand and in its ASEAN partners. The organization's shaky foundation renders it unable or unwilling to help rectify the fundamental weaknesses of its members. Nor has this fundamental dilemma concerted ASEAN minds as it continues diplomatically to punch above its weight.

If ASEAN is to play a more meaningful role in impacting the integration of East Asia, as we hope it will, the friends of ASEAN, including the US, will need to support efforts to rectify the economic and political imbalances that plague its member nations..

None of this is meant to belittle ASEAN's achievements. It will again pick up its diplomatic mantle and another ASEAN summit will soon be held. However, if ASEAN seeks continued and expanded influence in shaping the East Asian region, it will need to earn it by strengthening its constituents. Thailand's recent performance provides little grounds for optimism.