-
55. A Post-Cold War Architecture for Peace and Security
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
A Post-Cold War Architecture for Peace and Security 269 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville 55. A POST-COLD WAR ARCHITECTURE FOR PEACE AND SECURITY SARASIN VIRAPHOL Reprinted in abridged form from Sarasin Viraphol, “A Post-Cold War Architecture for Peace and Security”, in The Making of a Security Community in the Asia-Pacific, edited by Bunn Nagara and K. S. Balakrishnan (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia, 1994), pp. 89–95, by permission of the author and the publisher. The shape of the securiy architecture in the post-bipolar world will, to a large extent, be determined by our assumptions of what security entails. The premise of structural realism, the influential doctrine behind international power politics, is that the state is a unitary actor seeking to survive in an essentially anarchical international system.1 Based on these assumptions, some scholars have predicted that the post-Cold War multipolar world will lead to a return of the shifting alliances and instabilities that existed before World Wars I and II, as states seek to bolster their individual security by forming “balancing alignments in order to survive in the face of threats from aggressive competitors”.2 Another view contents that the end of the Cold War has rendered balance-of-power politics obsolete for the so-called core states, which comprise the industrialised states, of Western Europe, the United States and Japan. Shared norms regarding markets and democracy, together with technology, would make it more likely that conflicts will be resolved peacefully. Among the peripheral states, however, in the absence of absolute deterrents to war and similar shared norms, the possibility of a return to old-fashioned balance-of-power politics would remain strong.3 In East Asia, certainly, balance-of-power politics has formed the core assumption of regional security since the end of the Second World War. While the world has changed much since then, current developments suggest that the region is still operating, out of circumstantial necessity, in a realist mindset. In anticipation of a power vacuum, a network of military links has arisen. The US has naval and air access to facilities in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore holds military exercises with India and the Philippines, as well Thailand, Taiwan and Brunei. China is stepping up purchases of arms and military technology from Russia. Malaysia is on a shopping spree 055 AR Ch 55 22/9/03, 12:51 PM 269 270 Sarasin Viraphol By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville for military hardware to modernize its forces, and even contemplating military cooperation with China. These developments are to be expected, given realist assumptions about regional power politics. As intimated earlier, however, security in this new age involves more than military considerations, as the concept of national interest becomes more complex. As Paul Kennedy has pointed out in his neoMalthusian study, transnational forces like trade, technology, demographic pressures and the environment are redefining the security and stability of states in this age of interdependence.4 This does now mean that we can discard traditional notions of security, but rather that we should incorporate these new considerations into a comprehensive conception of security. SECURITY REVISITED Comprehensive security for the coming century has two main, interrelated components . The first is the traditional military component. This could take either the form of a balance of power, which in a multipolar environment would be unstable and may lead to armed conflict, or a region-wide military alliance, like NATO, aimed at deterring would-be aggressors from outside the region. The second form is of course preferable, but the requisite confidence for such a framework in East Asia is still absent. It is absent because until the end of the Cold War, there was no impetus for it. The hub-and-spokes arrangement was quite sufficient, until the cracks started to show. Since it will be a long time yet before the region is able to develop a collective security framework, the US presence remains indispensable for East Asia. Its main purpose will be to keep Asians from each others’ throats, but it will not be enough to create the atmosphere of trust and cooperation that ensures true security. The second component of security concerns non-traditional areas, in particular transnational forces, over which individual states have little control. The most important of these is trade, which will challenge us in the coming...