Regional security in the 21st century<\/p>\n
Ali Alatas, Former Indonesian Foreign Minister, Singapore, Part 2 of 2<\/p>\n
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan during the 1999 General
\nAssembly session specifically raised this issue, thus sparking an
\ninternational debate which may well continue for many years to
\ncome.<\/p>\n
While nobody can deny the imperative to stop massive and
\nsystematic violations of human rights causing humanitarian
\ntragedies in countries and societies, the risks posed by
\nhumanitarian intervention are equally clear: it could set
\ndangerous precedents for future interventions if done without
\nclear criteria or guidelines as to how, when and by whom such
\nintervention should be carried out.<\/p>\n
There is great sensitivity and concern, particularly among
\ndeveloping countries, at the notion of eroding or superseding the
\nprinciple of state sovereignty as implied in humanitarian
\nintervention. Even if such intervention had the sanction of the
\nUN Security Council, developing countries would still be acutely
\nconscious of the fact that they have precious little say in the
\ndecision-making processes of the Council and in the surveillance
\nof implementation of Council decisions.<\/p>\n
Moreover, those carrying out humanitarian intervention are
\nmost likely to be from the advanced countries of the \"North\" and
\nthose subjected to such intervention will be the developing
\ncountries of the \"South\", thus creating yet another dimension of
\nNorth-South contention.<\/p>\n
Therefore, if humanitarian intervention is to be accepted as a
\nnew norm in international relations, it must always be based on
\nthe principles of legitimacy and of universal applicability or
\nnon-discrimination. It must be - and be seen to be - justly and
\nconsistently applied, irrespective of which country or region
\nwould be affected.<\/p>\n
Hence, I am firmly of the view that the fundamental questions
\nraised by this evolving international norm need first to be
\nthoroughly discussed by the international community so as to
\narrive at consensus on the principles and criteria, the mandates
\nand guidelines for such intervention as well as on the specific
\ncircumstances and conditions under which humanitarian
\nintervention could take place.<\/p>\n
In Southeast Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
\n(ASEAN) can be said to be an early advocate of comprehensive
\nsecurity and of cooperative security, as inter alla evidenced by
\nthe promulgation of ASEAN's concept of a Zone of Peace, Freedom
\nand Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in 1972.<\/p>\n
It may also be noted that ASEAN anticipated many of the
\nprescriptions of the Palme Commission by well over a decade. And
\nI am sure that its member-countries are presently carefully
\nconsidering all salient aspects of human security and of
\nhumanitarian intervention.<\/p>\n
Nations often perceive, as the ASEAN countries do, that the
\nprincipal threats to their security either emanate from or are
\nrelated to conditions within their own region. Thus, developing
\ncountries often adopt regional approaches to security as a
\nnatural response to the inadequacy of international mechanisms in
\nsafeguarding their security. This is not to say that they can
\nneglect the extra-regional dimensions of security, particularly
\nif external states have forces stationed in the region or in
\nother ways assume responsibility for the security of one or more
\nregional states.<\/p>\n
Not every region or sub-region can effectively adopt a
\nregional security approach. For a region to be able to do so
\nsuccessfully, it must have coherence in terms of military
\nconditions and of the security outlook and interests of the
\nregional states.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, in cases where there is no persistent
\npolitical or military friction between neighboring states, the
\nregion may provide a viable setting for dialogue and agreement on
\na framework of mutual security.<\/p>\n
In the case of ASEAN, the following factors indeed converged
\nto ensure such coherence:<\/p>\n
Firstly, a shared perceptions of the nature and possible
\ndirection of threats against their common security as well as
\nconcurrence on the most effective approaches to the maintenance of
\ntheir security;<\/p>\n
Secondly, a strong desire to nurture stability and peace among
\nthemselves for the sake of common progress and prosperity;<\/p>\n
Thirdly, a sense of cultural affinity, political solidarity and
\ncommon purpose based on historical experiences;<\/p>\n
Fourthly, a shared consciousness of the need to reduce undue
\nexternal or extra-regional interference and intervention in the
\naffairs of the region.<\/p>\n
Apart from these, it is equally important to stress and to
\nstrengthen the role of regional and sub-regional groupings of states
\nin addressing and resolving their particular security concerns
\nthrough more widely gauged forms and modalities of regional
\ncooperation.<\/p>\n
It is within this perspective that we should appreciate ASEAN's
\nconsistent and continuing efforts in bolstering the regional
\nsecurity approach as contained in the Treaty of Amity and
\nCooperation in Southeast Asia and in nurturing the ASEAN Regional
\nForum (ARF) as the only forum in the Asia-Pacific region for frank
\ndialogue and cooperation on political and security issues in which
\nall the major powers of the world participate.<\/p>\n
In view of the fundamental changes that have taken place and
\nthe basic trends now prevailing on the international scene, I tend
\nto believe that states and especially developing countries will
\nincreasingly turn towards regional arrangements as a means to
\novercome their security concerns.<\/p>\n
For the strategy of seeking security through military
\nalliances with the major powers has been proven to be counter-
\nproductive. Likewise, ever-increasing purchases of arms have
\ndiverted sorely needed resources away from national development
\nefforts without resulting in greater security.<\/p>\n
In a world of ever-expanding globalization and deepening
\ninterdependence and with the emergence of a wide range of non-
\ntraditional security threats, there is a clear and urgent need to
\nreassess our thinking and approaches towards security issues.<\/p>\n
As the 11th September terrorist attack and its aftermath have
\nshown, the world today is facing entirely different kinds of
\nsecurity threats requiring different counter-measures.<\/p>\n
I strongly believe, therefore, that the world at large and our
\nregion in particular should accord high priority to the forging
\nof close cooperation in combating such problems as illegal drug
\ntrafficking, smuggling including people smuggling, piracy and
\nmoney-laundering, which together with international terrorism,
\nnow constitute the new breed of trans-national security
\nchallenges.<\/p>\n
This article was the writer's speech delivered on Oct. 11, at
\nthe Pan-Asian Conference on Non-Traditional Security Issues in
\nSingapore.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/regional-security-in-the-21st-century-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}