The 2nd ASEAN Reader

Introduction

By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville Introduction 263 INTRODUCTION Sharon Siddique In the early years, Cold War rivalries were the defining element for ASEAN. Security among the newly independent ASEAN members was inter-state, giving primacy to the principle of non-interference within ASEAN, and a preoccupation with balancing regional and global superpower interests in the region. This general orientation remains even though ASEAN has increased its membership from the original five, to ten. How far ASEAN members have come can be gauged by comparing the regional positioning during the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia in the late 1970s, with the situation in 2003, when Cambodia, now an ASEAN member, held peaceful national elections. The peaceful expansion process itself is a testimony to intra-ASEAN strength and cohesion. However, there are areas in which ASEAN’s management of its internal affairs have been less than successful. ASEAN had to rely on external lobbying to settle the Cambodian conflict; the problem of cross-border air pollution continues to blaze; ASEAN was a marginal player in the resolution of East Timor’s independence; and perhaps more could have been done on a regional level to ameliorate the impact of the 1997 economic crisis. It must be acknowledged that ASEAN’s strength has been largely as a collective body to lobby and manage external threats and influences. This continues to be true, despite the fundamental shifts in fortunes within and among these external players — China, Japan, the (former) USSR, and the United States — particularly over the past fifteen years. During this time we have seen the removal of the Soviets as a player, the primacy of the United States as a global superpower, the re-emergence of China as regional player, and the diminished role of Japan. The Korean peninsula remains volatile due to the potential of nuclear conflict. And Australia continues to carve out an Asian role, as it also increasingly dominates the South Pacific. Most recently, the region has had to adjust to the United States in its new role as the lead-state in the post-911 War on Terrorism. Of course this intra-ASEAN versus interstate ASEAN plus external players scenario often blurs. A case in point was the Vietnam invasion of Cambodia in the late 1970s, which had elements of Sino-Soviet and U.S.USSR rivalries, as well as varying officially and unofficially held differences of opinion on solutions to the crisis among ASEAN members themselves. Another illustration is 054 AR Section V 22/9/03, 12:50 PM 263 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville 264 Introduction the decades-long controversy in the South China Sea over the sovereign ownership of the Spratly islands, which are variously claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. It was not until 1994 that ASEAN — in the form of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) — formalized an institution dedicated to discussing security issues. Security dialogues which have evolved over the past decades have been institutionalized in the ARF, which links the Southeast Asian security complex to Northeast Asia and the South Pacific. The ARF includes all the major players in the Asia-Pacific among its members. In formalizing the ARF, ASEAN has created a focal point for the discussion of Asia-Pacific security issues. It remains to be seen whether the ARF can progress beyond confidence-building measures (CBMs) to proactive, preventive diplomacy. It was not coincidental that the ARF was created several years after the end of the Cold War, and before the Southeast Asian economic crisis. ASEAN, in economic takeoff trajectory, was confident enough to take the step. Also, security as an issue has increased in importance in the post-Cold War period, with the uncertainty over the role of the United States. There is an increasing need to move from more passive hub and spoke security formation of the Cold War period, to developing shared norms on which to base confidence-building and other security instruments. But seeing the problem, and solving it, are two different issues. Without doubt, the past decade has seen the definition of “security” broadened from its traditional, territorial meaning to include “human security”, or “comprehensive security”. Human security concerns transnational issues, like environmental degradation, mass migration, energy security, drug trafficking, and cyber crime. All these issues are transstate , in that they cross the borders of individual nation-states, and hence affect not only...