ONE DAY SEMINAR

ONE DAY SEMINAR ON
“ASEAN COOPERATION: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
IN THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SITUATION”
New York, June 3, 2003

Second Session Q&A

Participant discourse:

ASEAN is a strong contender for a defense community despite any existing latent tensions. There is much optimism for a defense community in ASEAN as there has been no war between its member states since 1967. Conflict management through the absence of force in settling conflict will also be important for ASEAN.

However, since 1997, ASEAN has been weakened through issues like globalization and growth.

In terms of the question of Myanmar, this is a problem for ASEAN as it brings bad publicity to the organization. ASEAN should have waited and promoted a gradual assimilation of Myanmar rather than immediate admission. Its accession was a political decision.

A security community continues to be a good way to refocus ASEAN and focus on the fundamentals of the organization. However, trouble will come from this process. Some countries will question why ASEAN should provide a defense framework. Security issues have normally been bilateral but a comprehensive security paradigm may be a better way to ensure security that is not just military but also political.

Also, the notion of human security must be brought in. National security brings in the notion of states and therefore state secrets. Human security, a more encompassing term, allows for transparency and hence provides a better framework for a defense community. In order for a defense community to work, a democratic organization is not necessarily required but rather, a great deal of transparency.

***

Q: Professor Murphy brought up the idea of an ASEAN Secretary General. What do the panelists think of this idea?
Q: Mr. Sukma, what is the benefit of having an ASEAN security community? And what does ASEAN forfeit if it does not have it. Could you elaborate?

Ahmad:
The fundamentals of ASEAN state that no member will commit aggression against another. As this is the basis of ASEAN, there is no need to have a security community. For example, the difficulties between Malaysia and Singapore exist from racial lines, in this case the Malays versus the Chinese. A fundamentalist Islamic regime in Malaysia would pose problems as Singapore has stated that it would be opposed to the establishment of such a regime in Malaysia. ASEAN can address this problem.

Regarding the Secretary General, this would require money which may not be available.

Simons:
The issue of a Secretary General and a security community are a chicken and the egg situation. A security community must be viable before a Secretary General can exist. At present ASEAN cannot have an effective Secretary General. If an ASEAN security community is viewed as a continuum, it is not very developed. Should we view the center of such a continuum, the will of ASEAN’s members will secure peace both internally and externally and a variety of different mechanisms will be put into place when problems arise. However, ASEAN is no yet there. At the other end, an integrated community would allow for requested intervention, which would require a secretary general.

Sukma:
Sovereignty remains paramount to governments in the region, which undermines a Secretary General and a security community. Three conditions must be filled:

1. Governments must be comfortable with external and internal linkages
2. Boundaries of current international relations must be respected
3. Human security must be accepted as a defining factor in promoting regional security.

The notion of an ASEAN security community also has a terminology problem: on the one hand, a security community exists and on the other, an economic one. It gives the impression that 2 separate communities exist. The challenge for the summit will be how to bring these two areas together into one comprehensive package. This would give ASEAN a sense of purpose, there will be a need to refocus ASEAN’s operations and integrate the norms and values of ASEAN. The economic realm cannot continue without the strengthening of the political and security aspects. A security community will also allow ASEAN to deal with humanitarian disasters more effectively and depend less on outside aid.

Q (Ambassador of Myanmar): It has been refreshing to see positive views on what has been achieved by ASEAN and the notion of a security community is a good one. However, the apparent failures of ASEAN have been marred by perceptions of them. Unlike the European Union, ASEAN is not a collection of democratic states. Member states are at different levels of development. The principle of non-interference is a treaty obligation and in regards to a security community, the principle of sovereignty is key. Mr. Sukma, what happened to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation? There is a need to review and make amendments to the treaty because what is foreseen now would be in breach of treaty obligations. We need to look at what we want to achieve.

The issue of the enlargement of ASEAN should not be revisited. The inclusion of Myanmar should be seen as a marriage between ASEAN and Myanmar. For the last 30 years, ASEAN has been pursuing Myanmar to join. There has been a desire on both sides to embrace the same principles.

Sukma:
The transformation of ASEAN into a security community will not be a quick transformation and we need to have reasonable expectations of the plan of action anticipated at the summit. For the security community to become a reality, the existence of high levels of economic interdependence among member states will be essential, making conflict and war extremely costly. This foundation would be required for a security community.

<<