Last weekend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held its first summit since its new charter went into effect. The charter has been heralded as inaugurating a new era for the organization, which formed in the 1960s to fend off the threat of communism but has since evolved into an all-inclusive regional organization that serves as the foundation for Asia-wide regionalism. Yet, the "new" ASEAN looks a lot like the old one: united more in word than reality. If its divisions are not bridged and ASEAN does not become a vehicle for real action, the charter may prove to be ASEAN's tombstone rather than its future blueprint.

Since expanding in the 1990s — adding Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to original members Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand — ASEAN has been criticized for being a talk shop where procedure was more important than outcome. Such criticism was justified, but governments insisted that the disparities among its members forced ASEAN to adopt a go-slow approach that respected each nation's particular circumstances, avoided the imposition of mandates, and did not interfere with a state's internal affairs.

Frustrations mounted, however, and the prospect of ASEAN's irrelevance forced members to adopt the charter. Yet even that proved to be a frustrating experience as the charter that was approved was considerably weaker than that drafted by a high-level panel of experts. That gap kept several governments from initially ratifying the charter, but ultimately all signed up and it went into effect late last year.