ARF not seen as answer to regional security problems<\/p>\n
The ASEAN Regional Forum, Adelphi Paper 302
\n Michael Leifer
\n Oxford: Oxford University Press for the
\n International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1996,
\n 65 pages<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE: Events like the cross-strait tension between China
\nand Taiwan, the hiccup in U.S.-Japan security ties (in relation
\nto incidents in Okinawa) combined with ongoing concern about the
\nstandoff on the Korean Peninsula, the situation in the Spratly
\nIslands, and the regular reports of high-tech weapons
\nacquisitions in the Asia-Pacific, have all led to increasing
\napprehension about peace and stability in the region.<\/p>\n
A recent study warns, however, that regional countries should
\nnot look to the fledgling ASEAN Regional Forum to overcome their
\nsecurity concerns. The ARF had its inaugural meeting in July
\n1994.<\/p>\n
It is the only broad-based multilateral security grouping in
\nthe Asia-Pacific region. It is also the subject of a monograph by
\nMichael Leifer, professor of international relations at the
\nLondon School of Economics and Political Science, and a respected
\nauthority on Southeast Asian security and politics.<\/p>\n
Prof. Leifer argues that, although better than nothing, the
\nARF is only a diplomatic talkshop that does not have the
\ncapability to deal with the complex and challenging security
\nissues that lie before it.<\/p>\n
His central reservation about the utility of the ARF revolves
\naround what he calls the \"ASEAN model of regional security\". This
\nis based on the practice of using consultation and dialog, rather
\nthan conventional collective security mechanisms to address
\nsecurity issues.<\/p>\n
He questions the ability of ASEAN -- a loose grouping of
\nSoutheast Asian nations with a number of unresolved bilateral
\ndisputes -- to manage, if not defuse, the long-standing rivalries
\nand intractable disputes that exist between the major regional
\npowers in Northeast Asia.<\/p>\n
For Prof. Leifer, the ARF is a novel attempt by ASEAN, a
\ngrouping of the smaller Asia-Pacific states, to help shape the
\nregional security environment. He argues that the ARF has evolved
\nmuch faster than many had expected but, to date, has only played
\na very modest role in enhancing regional stability and security
\nby promoting understanding and confidence through dialogue.<\/p>\n
The fledgling ARF does not discuss, let alone deal with, the
\nkey regional security problems. Taiwan is not on the agenda;
\ndiscussion about the situation on the Korean Peninsula is limited
\nbecause North Korea is not a member; very little of substance has
\nemerged out of the various working groups established; and the
\nARF has had only some moderating influence on China's stance over
\nthe Spratly Islands.<\/p>\n
Prof. Leifer views the dispute over the Spratlys as the litmus
\ntest for measuring the effectiveness of the ARF to manage in some
\nway the \"changing balance or distribution of power and, in
\nparticular, the emergence of a rising power with a revisionist
\nagenda\", namely China.<\/p>\n
He points to the recent signing of the security agreement
\nbetween Indonesia and Australia, both founding members of the
\nARF, as a recognition of the limitations inherent in the ASEAN
\nmodel of regional security.<\/p>\n
In the case of Indonesia, in particular, he points to concerns
\nabout China as a major factor in Jakarta's decision to break with
\nits long cherished non-aligned status.<\/p>\n
Although Prof. Leifer does not see the ARF as a panacea for
\nAsia-Pacific security problems, there is no other broad-based
\nsecurity forum in the region, neither is there any official
\ndesire to form a stronger, NATO-style collective security
\ngrouping.<\/p>\n
Policy-makers are also quick to point out that the ARF is
\nstill in its formative stages, and that it is perhaps premature
\nto measure what is, by default, the only game in town, against
\nsome of the deep-seated security problems that the region faces.<\/p>\n
This is a good, albeit fairly critical, study of all the
\nissues involved in the fledgling ARF process, one which fills a
\ngap in the literature on regional security, and a must for anyone
\nwanting to gain an understanding of the context, evolution and
\nnature of the ARF in its early stages of development.<\/p>\n
-- Simon Hay<\/p>\n
Simon Hay is a research fellow at the Institute of Southeast
\nAsian Studies, Singapore.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/arf-not-seen-as-answer-to-regional-security-problems-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}