Making ARF relevant post-Sept. 11<\/p>\n
Kavi Chongkittavorn, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok<\/p>\n
At this time of year ever since 1994, diplomatic dialogues
\nhave been focusing on the future and relevancy of the ASEAN
\nRegional Forum (ARF), the region-wide security group. This year
\nis no exemption. But a big question looms large: Will the Sept.
\n11 event change the ARF? Or will it just push the ARF to the
\nsidelines?<\/p>\n
There are many who think the event creates new challenges and
\nopportunities to act. Western countries and non-ASEAN ARF
\ncountries believe the ARF has to prove its mettle in the post-
\nSept. 11 world by responding to the crisis impacting on the
\nregion rather than just standing idly by and exchanging views as
\nthey normally do<\/p>\n
But some Asian members -- such as China, Burma, Vietnam and
\nLaos -- prefer the slow but sure approach. They view the ARF
\nprimarily as a consultative forum, not a launching platform to
\nrespond to crises. Indeed, they do not want to be left behind by
\nthe security dialogue if it moves too fast. As long as it is
\nconfined to an annual meeting and inter-session meetings under
\nthe rubric of confidence-building measures, they feel secure
\nabout the process.<\/p>\n
When the ARF started out it was aimed at facilitating dialogue
\namong countries in the region, in particular between ASEAN and
\nother countries that mattered to the grouping's collective
\nsecurity and stability. The major powers, especially the members
\nof the UN Security Council except UK and France, were invited to
\njoin. Incrementally, other countries with a geographical
\nfootprint in the region such as India, North Korea and Mongolia
\nbecame members. At least twenty countries including Pakistan,
\nIran and Kazakhstan are currently on the waiting list.<\/p>\n
Frequent criticism against the ARF zeroes on its inability to
\nrespond to crises or security developments. Others question
\nASEAN's ability to handle the expansion of the ASEAN-security
\nmodel with non-ASEAN countries as the majority. For one thing,
\nASEAN has yet to seriously focus on the security of the Northeast
\nAsian region. The grouping does not possess the knowledge to make
\nprogress on the clear problems on the Korean peninsula.<\/p>\n
For the time being, ARF participants only discuss military and
\nsecurity-related issues but have not touched on such
\ntransnational issues as anti-terrorism, drug trafficking, haze,
\ndrug and human smuggling.<\/p>\n
To be fair, the nine-year-old talking shop has inculcated
\ntrust building and mutual understanding among members. Once
\nuntouchable issues related to Burma, the Korean peninsula and the
\nSouth China Sea as well as nuclear non-proliferation have been
\ndiscussed -- sometimes candidly and frankly. A series of security
\ncooperative frameworks related to disaster relief and rescue,
\npeacekeeping operations and demining have been touched upon and
\ncould be concretised and implemented in the future.<\/p>\n
Annual defense white papers from members willing to share,
\nincluding exchanges of security officials, have improved
\ntransparency and the understanding of each other's threat
\nperceptions and security concerns. In the process, some members
\nstill want to spend more time talking about these areas to build
\nup mutual trust which they argue is still lacking among major
\nplayers, particularly China and the US. The inability to form a
\nconsensus among them has created a benign environment within the
\nARF.<\/p>\n
In light of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington,
\nthe ARF leaders are expected to set up an inter-session group on
\ntransnational crime and terrorism when they meet in Brunei.
\nFurthermore, they will agree to allow the chairman of the ARF to
\nadopt a higher profile in facilitating the discussion and
\nproviding updates on regional security.<\/p>\n
During the Bangkok meeting in 2000, Australia proposed the
\nestablishment of \"friends of the chair\" who can assist the
\nchairman with specific tasks and issues. This idea could be
\nagreed upon if there is a strong push from non-ASEAN members.<\/p>\n
As such, the ASEAN secretary general and the Jakarta-based
\nsecretariat will have more work to do related to the ARF.
\nHowever, ASEAN members still do not want the secretariat to set
\nup an ARF unit to deal exclusively with ARF coordination and
\ndocumentation even though the paper workload has increased many
\nfold. In addition, Cambodia, as the next ARF chairman, would need
\nhelp from the secretariat to prepare for the forum.<\/p>\n
That much is clear. But the ARF members have not agreed to
\nmove to the next stage of preventive diplomacy, let alone the
\nultimate aim of conflict resolution. Most members think enough
\nmutual trust has been established among the members to move
\nahead. But China, currently one of the most influential ARF
\nplayers, does not agree. Beijing still insists that the ARF
\nshould proceed at a pace comfortable to all members.<\/p>\n
When the ARF reaches its 10th anniversary next year, a major
\nreview of its purposes and objectives is necessary. The post-
\nSept. 11 world is different from the one in 1994 when the Asia-
\nPacific was economically strong although some of the major issues
\ncontinue such as unresolved territorial disputes, the
\nChina\/Taiwan issue, nuclear arms, weapons modernization and
\nacquisition.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the ARF needs to make further progress in
\naddressing preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution, without
\nwhich the ARF process could be render obsolete. The ARF members
\nmust be more willing to discuss non-traditional and non-
\nconventional security issues.<\/p>\n
Finally, the time must come when a non-ASEAN member can be co-
\nchair of the forum, not just for the inter-session meetings as it
\nis today.<\/p>\n
As always, ASEAN wants to bite off more than it can chew. The
\ngrouping fears it will lose control if the ARF chair falls into
\nthe hands of non-ASEAN members. In more ways than one, ASEAN also
\nrealizes failure to do so could drive away active non-ASEAN
\nmembers demanding a stronger sense of belonging. ASEAN, which has
\nyet to recover from the insecurity resulting from the Asian
\neconomic crisis, will still be in the driving seat, but the
\nproblem is, it does not know where to go.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/making-arf-relevant-post-sept-11-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}