ASEAN and collective security system

ASEAN and collective security system

Bantarto Bandoro, Jakarta

The emergence of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as President raised
high expectations in the region that he would initiate even
stronger measures in the fight against terrorism. Such an
expectation was reportedly expressed openly by Philippine
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, that Susilo would be a strong
ally in the fight against regional militant groups.

It is not clear, however, what Arroyo was really up to when
she said that ASEAN should attain collective security. Arroyo's
assessment of regional security issues must have gone beyond the
current regional security setting, as the region is already
moving toward full integration -- but is, apparently, still far
from being completely save from the threat of international
terrorism. The threat of terrorism needs to be managed through
collective endeavors in the region.

Whatever criticism can be made against Arroyo's idea of
collective security -- its framework and assumptions on its
practical prescription -- Arroyo's vision is positive, if not
optimistic. Such a pronouncement suggests a more ambitious vision
of what cooperative regional-international activities can
achieve, especially through ASEAN.

The idea of regional collective security is, therefore, worth
further analysis -- but, it should not be confined only to the
management of the threat of terrorism.

The region will definitely be facing all kinds of regional
security issues in the future. There is, therefore, a need for an
updated regional security policy, so that ASEAN can enhance its
capacity to respond collectively, and effectively, to some
pressing regional security issues.

It may be worthwhile to subject the foundations of the notion
of collective security to closer scrutiny. Collective security is
understood as the maintenance of international peace. A concept
that has long been linked to a collective attempt by the UN to
maintain international peace. That concept envisages the
universal renunciation by states of "resorting to force", save
for a collective response to a threat to any member of a global
security community.

This principle was supposed to govern the League of Nations,
and the UN continues to uphold aspirations for its realization.
Unfortunately, as a regulative principle, it is spectacularly
lacking in historical success, as seen in the multilateral
invasion of Iraq in 1991. It was more the product of the UN
Security Council acting as a "concert of powers" than the
emergence of a genuine, collective security system.

Threats to regional stability can occur at any time; they can
also stem from any source, either internal or external. If ASEAN
were to adopt collective security in anticipation of future
regional security threats, then serious regional discussions
would be vital, so as to make the concept of collective security
as specific as possible.

Collective security is a coalition-building strategy, whereby
a group of nations agree not to attack one another. Not only
that, the concept also implies the defense of each nation against
the attack of the others, if such an event should occur. But such
a scenario is very unlikely to happen in the ASEAN context.

So, why would the concept of collective security be
particularly relevant in the ASEAN context?

For ASEAN, collective security is a much more effective
approach to security than individual member countries trying to
act alone.

An ASEAN collective security system implies that ASEAN members
countries possess the same rights and the same duties. Not only
that, an ASEAN collective security system must be as flexible as
possible, meaning that it should pursue the system in a way that
supports the security of each member state, and in accordance
with a code of conduct -- if any -- agreed upon by ASEAN member
states.

ASEAN has, so far, been practicing "cooperative security". But
collective security must not be equated with the concept of
cooperative security. In the ASEAN context, a collective security
system is a system for defining, safeguarding and -- if necessary
-- enforcing the law. A cooperative security system, on the
contrary, is restricted to defining, discussing and monitoring.
Thus, it can be said that an ASEAN collective security system
would begin where cooperative security left off.

What ASEAN had in mind, when it agreed to develop an ASEAN
Security Community, was the prevention of undesired activities in
the region. Here, active stability control wards off potential
intruders through sanctions, to prevent an intrusion. Thus, an
intrusion signifies the failure of the collective security
system.

If active security control serves as a preventative mechanism,
so does the collective security system, meaning that an ASEAN
collective security system would also serve to prevent future
security threats.

The road to stability, and perpetual peace and concrete
progress in ASEAN, is still a very long way off, despite the
acceptance of ASEAN Security Community. If ASEAN can eventually
arrive at collective security -- as envisioned by Gloria Arroyo
-- it would not only illustrate political progress in ASEAN, but
also reflect a much more organized system of ASEAN regional
security. Collective security requires multilateralism, and such
a requirement was already met by ASEAN, when it decided to act
collectively against terrorism and other threats.

The writer (bandoro@csis.or.id) is editor of The Indonesian
Quarterly of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS). He is also a lecturer at the International Relations Post
Graduate Studies Program, Faculty of Social and Political
Science, University of Indonesia, Jakarta