The ASEAN Regional Forum
The question of whether the ASEAN Regional Forum ARF effectively represents the concept of security community is an important one. ARF agrees that the concept of comprehensive security does not only cover military aspects and traditional security issues, but also relates to political, economic, social and other issues such as non-traditional security issues. The establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994 was an event that demonstrated heightened political and security cooperation both within ASEAN, and between ASEAN and external powers. the ARF’s goals and procedures resemble those of an institution that aims to create a security community. Within the statements mentioned, ARF’s representation of the concept of security community can be explained in three major aspects. First, the peaceful community (decades long non-military confrontations) between ASEAN member states. Second, cooperative security as it conforms with the ASEAN Way of integration. Third, the preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Adler (1998) defined the security community as a group of states that had become integrated to the point at which there is ‘real assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other physically, but will settle their disputes in some other way’. A system of relations in which states become integrated to the point that feelings of community and trust allow them to deal with conflicts of interest without resorting to violence.
First argument, the experience of the last decade of the 20th century has indicated that conflicts in the 21st century are more likely to be internal than inter-state. One may ask, is there a role for regional organizations in such conflicts? The most ambitious attempt to manage security in the post-Cold War Asia Pacific is the recently created ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and at its core is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ASEAN has acquired an impressive reputation as a successful regional organization and is widely credited with transforming group of conflict-prone states into a viable “security community”. ASEAN has developed a method of interaction that has alleviated tensions among its member states. Snitwongse (1995) pointed out that many ASEAN political leaders and observers have suggested that ARF adopt the ASEAN way of approaching security issues in the Asia-Pacific region, which means, it runs along with the ASEAN goal of integration that indirectly refers to security community.
For example, the first aspect that would purport ARF’s representation of the security community is the lack of military conflict between ASEAN member states. Garofano (2002) explained that Southeast Asia has not seen open conflict between ASEAN members and that constructivists are optimistic that the ARF contributes to progress toward a “security community.” They believe that strong feelings of trust and community can be generated over time, thereby allowing states to avoid conflicts of interest or settle them without resorting to violence. In the ARF process, the ASEAN countries are leading multilateral cooperation, and by so doing, they are not only constructing this norm of security cooperation but also spreading it from Southeast Asia to the whole Asia-Pacific region.
Secondly, ‘ASEAN Way’ of integration shows that security community exists as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) functioned through dialogue and consultation, which are the main principles of ASEAN Way, on matters related to politics and security in the region, as well as to discuss and equate views between ARF participating countries to minimize threats to regional stability and security. Supporters of the ARF and proponents of the security community concept share a belief that increased interactions in the social, economic, and political realms will lead to heightened senses of trust and community, with positive payoffs in the security realm.
Adler (2002) gave an example that in the 1950s that the dense network of transactions among states involved in a process of integration leads to a sense of community characterized by mutual sympathy and loyalties; a sense of “we feeling,” trust, and mutual consideration; successful predictions of others’ behavior; and in general a dynamic process of mutual attention, communication, perception of needs, and responsiveness in the process of decision making. To support the argument, ARF process runs in a speed “at the pace comfortable to all” for all ARF participants, taking into account sensitivity to various issues related to certain participants. Nevertheless, constructivist scholars assert that identity can determine the nature of regional security Wendt (1992).
Lastly, the ARF was an ambitious attempt to expand the intra-regional security cooperation methods of confidence building and preventative diplomacy that ASEAN had developed to the Asia-Pacific region. One of the evolutionary main objectives of the ASEAN’s goals in creating and maintaining regional stability and harmony is to make a positive contribution in various efforts to deliver confidence building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia Pacific region and Conflict Resolution. Active, full and balanced participation and collaboration is an absolute requirement for all ARF participants, with ASEAN still being the main driver for ARF. This approach has enabled ARF participants to deal constructively with various political and security issues faced by the region, including new issues that have emerged as a result of globalization.
For instance, one of the major factor that settles disputes between Southeast Asian countries is the development of transparency, increased trust and understanding so as to avoid or reduce mutual suspicion and misunderstanding between participating countries, thus, will further enhance national peace, security and stability. Other than that, the ARF was built up from the ASEAN- Post Ministerial Conference (PMC) process which is an ASEAN’s pursuit of cooperative security was aimed at engaging all the countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including China. ASEAN’s approach was to enhance security by fostering a sense of mutual understanding and trust through dialogue and consultation.
To be specific, Katsumata (2009) stated that the three non-ASEAN countries — namely, China, the United States, and Australia — have been influenced by the prevailing ideational structure in the ARF, and their policies have been converging on ASEAN-led cooperative security. As a result of the successful development of their norm-oriented exercise, three elements of the ASEAN countries’ self-interest, associated with cooperation, have been increasingly clear the achievement of their ‘national interests’ or ‘national security’ through the enhancement of ASEAN’s relations with China, its autonomy vis-à-vis the United States, and its centrality to Asia-Pacific regionalism in the security field.
In conclusion, since 1975, ASEAN with the help of ASEAN Regional Forum has, arguably, grown into a security community. The statement that “The ASEAN Regional Forum effectively represents the concept of security community” is standing upon several grounds. Although ARF is still relatively new, it has become a valuable contributor to maintaining harmony and stability in the Asia Pacific region. It has fostered apolitical climate that has greatly reduced the likelihood that the many outstanding disputes between its members will lead to serious conflict. It is probable that Southeast Asia today would be much less peaceful if not for ASEAN Regional Forum. Strengthening regional peace and security will provide a conducive environment that is essential for the success of national development in each participating country. This will ultimately encourage an increase in the community security in the region.
References:
Adler E. and Barnett M (1998). Security Communities. Cambridge University Press. p.6.
Garofano, J. (2002). Power, Institutions, and the ASEAN Regional Forum: A Security Community for Asia?. Asian Survey — ASIAN SURV. 42. 502–521. 10.1525/as.2002.42.3.502.
Katsumata H. (2009) East Asia and the Asia-Pacific. In: ASEAN’s Cooperative Security Enterprise. Critical Studies of the Asia Pacific Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. http://doi-org-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/10.1057/9780230277038_9
Snitwongse, K. (1995). “ASEAN’s Security Cooperation: Searching for a Regional Order”. Pacific Review 8. p. 528.
Weaver, O. et al. (1993). Identity: Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe. London: Pinter. p. 24.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics”. International Organization 46:2. p. 398.
