ARF must move forward for security of region

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly', Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta

The Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN) foreign ministers are holding their annual meeting in Brunei from July 26 until Aug. 2 to discuss regional political and security matters amid criticism that the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the only regional security mechanism, does not have the clout to deal with difficult security issues.

Since its first inception in 1994, ARF has always been potentially historic, but nobody seems to believe it can fulfill its potential and make history in the foreseeable future.

Will the Brunei meeting make history for ASEAN and ARF, as it takes place under the spirit of combating international terrorism? The terrible events of Sept. 11 and the undeterred United States-led responses have profoundly altered threat perception and raised new security concerns.

This year's meeting will certainly be shadowed by the urgent need for ARF to adopt a regional stand on fighting international terrorism. Terrorism is indeed a security problem for the region and other parts of the world. It has become something like a magnet, bringing together all of the countries in the region to fight the perceived number one threat to humankind. The United States ASEAN members are reportedly set to sign a joint antiterrorism declaration at Asia's biggest security meeting.

It is perhaps much easier for ASEAN to adopt a joint stand on fighting terrorism, as it has show with its declaration on terrorism adopted last year. Three members of ASEAN -- Malaysia, the Philippine and Singapore -- have signed an antiterror treaty. There was a proposal that the treaty be expanded to include other members of ASEAN. So far, however, there has been no sign that other members of ASEAN are ready to join the treaty. But through quiet diplomacy and awareness of the grave impact of terrorist acts, it is hoped that others will join.

The expectation has been placed on ARF to come up with some sort of security initiative, because ARF is the region's only security grouping. But an examination of its track record shows that it has been unable to respond to security developments in a timely manner. ARF, which meets only once a year, is not endowed with the necessary institutional capacities for early warnings or the quick formulation of positions with respect to unfolding security situations, especially post-Sept. 11. Nor does authorization for ARF action come quickly. So, ASEAN has been impotent in the face of a host of post -Sept. 11 threats.

Having said that, and because since 2000 the forum has included North Korea, who the U.S. identified as part of an "axis of evil", it would be difficult for ARF to collectively gear itself to the point where all members agreed to initiate concrete policies on terrorism.

All that can be expected, as has occurred after past meetings, is an open ARF statement condemning all acts of terrorism and appealing to all members of the forum to act in concert against the threat of terrorism. It would mostly be rhetoric. How ARF is actually able to develop a policy on terrorism will depend on a number of factors, including how the members see their interests as being served or jeopardized by such policy measures.

Terrorism and its related issues is indeed a security problem either at the micro or macro-level of states and the region. Collective, concrete and speedy action, provided that ARF has the mechanisms to authorize action, to handle terrorist issues is imperative if ARF wished to be seen as playing a strategic and more meaningful role with regard to international terrorism. But judging from the way it currently moves, ARF is incapable of dealing with the post-Sept. 11 security environment.

Therefore, some additional diplomatic initiatives need to be taken in the region. Will the region see this occur in Brunei?

International terrorism will continue to be a major concern for several countries in the region. It is, however, not the only factor causing security headaches in the region, meaning that ARF will still have to deal with some dangerous flash points. These range from the tense ties between China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, the India-Pakistan row over Kashmir and the South China Sea conflict, to conventional issues such as territorial disputes, arms control and nuclear nonproliferation and elimination.

Besides, there is a need for ARF also to tackle nonconventional security issues such as threats to human security, the illegal flow of people, arm trafficking and other forms of transnational organized crime.

So far, ARF has been unable to contribute meaningfully to the management of either conventional or nonconventional security issues. Everyone agrees that security headaches are intensifying in the region, but an agreement, even through the mechanisms of ARF, on how to deal with these flash points and prevent and settle future conflicts, coupled with the issue of terrorism, is proving extremely difficult to come by.

ARF seems to be stuck in first gear, still promoting confidence-building measures. ARF has failed to move on to stage two and three of its founding protocols, of concrete preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution.

In short, until now there is still no consensus in the forum on the pace of ARF. To get ARF to move into its second stage, it is perhaps important that a special ARF task force on terrorism be established.

Such an initiative would hopefully pave the way for a conflict resolution framework, providing for joint peacekeeping missions, as an example. ASEAN influence in this regard is indeed needed.

The list of security issues as stated above is a continuous worry across the region. And there is no other regional security mechanism besides ARF that can manage the issues; it covers a vast and volatile area, stretching from the Russian Far East through Southeast Asia to the Indian subcontinent and the United States.

No one can really be sure how much time ARF needs before it reaches the final stage of its development. The Brunei meeting will hopefully be a historic moment in ARF's development. The eight-year-old forum must change, otherwise it will sink deeper into a long and winding road, without any certainty as to whether it will emerge as a security guarantor for the region.