ARF must move forward for security of region

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.