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