Economy sets security agenda

By Bantarto Bandoro

JAKARTA (JP): The coming months will witness three major Asia Pacific diplomatic events, namely the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM), the meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference (ASEAN-PMC) and the meeting of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders.

From a security perspective each has its own tasks. The ASEAN PMC and ARF, for example, will set the agenda for regional security. Although APEC's agenda is economic cooperation, its importance lies in its strategic implications. In short, these meetings are designed to develop more stable and constructive security relations in the region.

A closer observation will reveal that the above fora do contain a variety of cultures. An attempt is made here to highlight the importance of respecting and accepting culture as a fundamental for regional security. Perhaps it is through such fora that one sees the fusion of Asian and Western civilizations, which could become the basis for future regional order in the Asia-Pacific region.

The existence of ARF, ASEAN-PMC and APEC does not tell us anything about the Pacific community. One, however, recognizes the fact that as the region addresses the security challenges of the post Cold War era, the constructive contributions of such fora are critical to regional security and stability.

The past meetings of ARF, ASEAN-PMC and APEC stressed the importance of enhancing and enlarging the "web of cooperative realities" in the Pacific region. Stable, long-term security relations are an important component of the web.

The most important element of this "web" is of course culture. In the past, one often denied culture as an approach to security. Now, the existence of such fora has made the region more dynamic because they bring into the region the best from several streams of rich civilizations in Asia and the West.

It can be said then that ARF, ASEAN-PMC and APEC have introduced culture as an approach to promoting security cooperation and dialog between developed and developing nations. They should not be seen as impediments to strengthening and enlarging the "web of cooperative realities" in the Pacific region. Perhaps it is through such fora that long-lasting politico-security interaction between the groups with different cultural backgrounds can be promoted.

It is not yet clear whether Asia has developed its own particular recipe for stability in the region. Several lessons however can be learned from the history of Asia, namely that stability can be based on informal bilateral arrangements, consensus, and the principle of non-interference in the affairs of others.

Although the ASEAN initiative to promote security cooperation and dialog was at the outset not intended to represent a specific Asian way of managing regional security and order, the process led by ASEAN clearly demonstrates the acceptance of the third principle (the principle of non-intervention) by the developed members of ARF.

This third principle is rooted in Asian tradition, namely respecting households. This principle also has its roots in Europe. But one observes that with the emergence of universal assumptions in Western society, this principle has been eroded.

In spite of this, one cannot just totally isolate this principle from the Western way of respecting neighbors. The recent regional process demonstrates that the developed countries of ARF and APEC do accept without hesitation this principle of Asia.

There is a belief on the part of the West that institution building can only be promoted if they strengthen their regional organizations, for example NATO, the European Union and perhaps also the OSCE.

Their security is built upon the functioning of such formal and structured regional organizations. Thus, it has always been the policy of the West to emphasize the role of regional institu tions in developing stability. The Asia-Pacific does not have comparable institutions. For Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, process is given more weight than structure. The fact that ASEAN emphasizes informal-personal contacts and trust-building is something that one should recognize.

Against this background, one would think that these two different cultures, one emphasizing structure (the role of regional institutions) and the other emphasizing process (infor mal contacts and others), might not meet.

The point is not to debate whether one rejects the culture of the other, but to indicate the fact that the ARF and APEC did derive from regional processes, and it is also in the interest of Asia to enhance the role of such regional mechanisms (the term regional mechanism rather than regional organization nowadays is perhaps more suitable to Asia) for trust-building purposes.

Thus, the line one can draw here is that in the ARF, APEC and ASEAN-PMC, both sides, Asia and the West, accept the thesis of "enhancing and strengthening the role of regional mechanisms". Although the ARF and APEC have never had heavy agendas nor issued communiques or attempted to create a Helsinki-type forum, the above thesis has always been stressed in their final communiques.

Looking to the future, the coming meetings of ASEAN-PMC, ARF and APEC are significant for several reasons.

First, the meetings could bring greater attention from the West to the Asian region as a partner in economic, political and security cooperation.

Second, the meeting will become the venue where both sides can express their commitments to connect and reinforce each other's interests. Third, the meeting guarantees the West support in enhancing and strengthening the future security of Asia. Fourth, the meeting will serve as an important vehicle to promote long term and stable cooperation between Asia and the West.

What lessons can one learn from the existence of two different groups with different cultural backgrounds in what one calls "Asian-administered" regional fora such ARF and ASEAN-PMC?

First, the Asia-Pacific has developed a "corporate culture" approach to regional security. ASEAN-PMC, ARF and APEC are clear manifestations of a blending of East and West. Both sides, East and West, will continue to demonstrate to the region that a combination of Western concepts such as national sovereignty and an Eastern attitude in managing differences can become an effective approach to regional security.

Second, the presence of culturally diverse but comfortable pairs such as ASEAN and the United States, Indonesia and Australia or Malaysia and Great Britain (if the later is accepted as a member of ARF) would certainly serve as a pillar for a long- lasting security and political cooperation between East and West.

Third, the cultural component of regional arrangements will continue to direct the future course of Asia-Pacific security provided that the members maintain the existence and maximize the roles of ARF and APEC.

The presence and functioning of cultural components of ASEAN PMC, ARF and APEC will make the members realize that they are part of the global society that values the importance of creating regional order.

Furthermore, respecting other cultures in a politico-security forum such ARF will provide modalities for the two diverse groups not only to establish modes and habits of consultation and cooperation, but also to manage their relations and to prevent disputes from escalating into conflicts. The fusion of Asian and Western civilizations should be seen as an important ingredient in the Asian security approach.

The writer is with the Department of International Relations, CSIS Jakarta.

Window: The fusion of Asian and Western civilizations should be seen as an important ingredient in the Asian security approach.