Economy sets security agenda

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.