ARF not seen as answer to regional security problems

ARF not seen as answer to regional security problems

The ASEAN Regional Forum, Adelphi Paper 302 Michael Leifer Oxford: Oxford University Press for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1996, 65 pages

SINGAPORE: Events like the cross-strait tension between China and Taiwan, the hiccup in U.S.-Japan security ties (in relation to incidents in Okinawa) combined with ongoing concern about the standoff on the Korean Peninsula, the situation in the Spratly Islands, and the regular reports of high-tech weapons acquisitions in the Asia-Pacific, have all led to increasing apprehension about peace and stability in the region.

A recent study warns, however, that regional countries should not look to the fledgling ASEAN Regional Forum to overcome their security concerns. The ARF had its inaugural meeting in July 1994.

It is the only broad-based multilateral security grouping in the Asia-Pacific region. It is also the subject of a monograph by Michael Leifer, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and a respected authority on Southeast Asian security and politics.

Prof. Leifer argues that, although better than nothing, the ARF is only a diplomatic talkshop that does not have the capability to deal with the complex and challenging security issues that lie before it.

His central reservation about the utility of the ARF revolves around what he calls the "ASEAN model of regional security". This is based on the practice of using consultation and dialog, rather than conventional collective security mechanisms to address security issues.

He questions the ability of ASEAN -- a loose grouping of Southeast Asian nations with a number of unresolved bilateral disputes -- to manage, if not defuse, the long-standing rivalries and intractable disputes that exist between the major regional powers in Northeast Asia.

For Prof. Leifer, the ARF is a novel attempt by ASEAN, a grouping of the smaller Asia-Pacific states, to help shape the regional security environment. He argues that the ARF has evolved much faster than many had expected but, to date, has only played a very modest role in enhancing regional stability and security by promoting understanding and confidence through dialogue.

The fledgling ARF does not discuss, let alone deal with, the key regional security problems. Taiwan is not on the agenda; discussion about the situation on the Korean Peninsula is limited because North Korea is not a member; very little of substance has emerged out of the various working groups established; and the ARF has had only some moderating influence on China's stance over the Spratly Islands.

Prof. Leifer views the dispute over the Spratlys as the litmus test for measuring the effectiveness of the ARF to manage in some way the "changing balance or distribution of power and, in particular, the emergence of a rising power with a revisionist agenda", namely China.

He points to the recent signing of the security agreement between Indonesia and Australia, both founding members of the ARF, as a recognition of the limitations inherent in the ASEAN model of regional security.

In the case of Indonesia, in particular, he points to concerns about China as a major factor in Jakarta's decision to break with its long cherished non-aligned status.

Although Prof. Leifer does not see the ARF as a panacea for Asia-Pacific security problems, there is no other broad-based security forum in the region, neither is there any official desire to form a stronger, NATO-style collective security grouping.

Policy-makers are also quick to point out that the ARF is still in its formative stages, and that it is perhaps premature to measure what is, by default, the only game in town, against some of the deep-seated security problems that the region faces.

This is a good, albeit fairly critical, study of all the issues involved in the fledgling ARF process, one which fills a gap in the literature on regional security, and a must for anyone wanting to gain an understanding of the context, evolution and nature of the ARF in its early stages of development.

-- Simon Hay

Simon Hay is a research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.