Southeast Asian Perspectives on Security

3. Evolution of the Security Dialogue Process in the Asia-Pacific Region

Evolution of the Security Dialogue Process 35© 2000 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore 3 Evolution of the Security Dialogue Process in the Asia-Pacific Region Daljit Singh INTRODUCTION There has been a proliferation of security dialogue in the Asia-Pacific since the end of the Cold War. Dialogue has taken a variety of forms: bilateral, multilateral, regional (embracing the entire Asia-Pacific), subregional, official and unofficial. There is also dialogue which deals only with specific disputes or problems. This chapter will focus on the origins and development of the present Asia-Pacific-wide multilateral security dialogue, both at the official and unofficial levels. Here, AsiaPacific is defined to cover East and Southeast Asia, Australasia, the South Pacific islands, Russia (because of its Pacific territories), Mongolia, as well as the United States and Canada because of the economic, security and political linkages of these North American states with East Asia and Australasia. Dialogues must have certain objectives. At the minimum, dialogues are meant to enhance understanding of participants’ thinking and policies and thereby reduce uncertainty. Among the more ambitious goals of dialogue would be to build new institutions to prevent or resolve conflict or a new security architecture to keep the peace. Supporters of security dialogue generally belong to the liberal camp of international relations scholars who believe that dialogue and engagement can, over a period of time, produce better understanding between states and prevent conflict. In contrast, the Realist school, having a more dismal view of human nature, believes that it is only power, operating as a deterrent or a potential ISEAS DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE. No reproduction without permission of the publisher: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, SINGAPORE 119614. FAX: (65)7756259; TEL: (65) 8702447; E-MAIL: publish@iseas.edu.sg 36 Daljit Singh© 2000 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore coercive instrument, that secures and maintains peace. The liberal concept of security also tends to be broader than just military security and would take into account non-conventional aspects like the narcotics trade, transnational crime, migration of peoples and environmental threats. Post-Cold War Asia-Pacific multilateral security dialogue was preceded by economic dialogue, first in unofficial bodies and then between governments. The rapid economic growth of the region and the increasing economic interdependence within it, as well as growing economic and trade frictions, including those between Japan and the United States, generated interest in multilateral economic institutions. Economic dialogue first took place in unofficial bodies like the Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC), the Pacific Trade and Development Council PACTAD) — both set up in the 1960s — and the Pacific Economic Co-operation Council (PECC) set up in 1980. Unofficial dialogue paved the way for the establishment in 1989 of the official Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) forum. Indeed, the networks established by both the unofficial and official economic dialogue helped to overcome the psychological and political inhibitions about Asia-Pacific-wide co-operation and facilitated the subsequent establishment of security dialogue. Also, the value of what has come to be known as Track Two dialogue was first clearly demonstrated in bodies like PBEC, PACTAD, and, in particular, PECC. As will be elaborated below, Asia-Pacific security dialogue, both official and unofficial, had a combination of motivations and objectives. However, the central reasons related to the strategic uncertainty that arose after the end of the Cold War and the many territorial and other disputes that existed in the region with the potential for conflict. If one had to list the four most important reasons, they would be to build better trust and confidence among Asia-Pacific states; to engage and integrate China, a rising power, into the regional and international order; to keep the United States engaged as an indispensable component of the Asia-Pacific strategic balance; and to build institutions to enmesh the countries of a region noted for paucity of common institutions and abundance of historical rivalries and contemporary disputes, in co-operative endeavours. BACKGROUND Paucity of multilateral dialogue during the Cold War... Security dialogue as such is not a new phenomenon in the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, it flourished in the 1920s, but, needless to say, did not Evolution of the Security Dialogue Process 37© 2000 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore prevent the Sino-Japanese War in the 1930s and subsequently the Pacific War. During the Cold War there were links between the region’s military forces...