As Delivered:
The New Zealand Perspective
Dr Wayne Mapp, Minister of Defence, New Zealand
Dr Chipman, Mr Sudarsono, Mr Lee, ministers, defence chiefs, ambassadors, ladies and gentlemen, the Shangri-La Dialogue provides a unique opportunity to more informally discuss regional security issues and it provides an opportunity to look forward. The importance of this forum is underscored by the fact that it involves the largest economies in the world, the fastest-developing countries in the world, and a wide spread of nations in terms of geography, size and security issues, but we are all bound by common issues around trade, security and growth. Last night, Prime Minister Rudd challenged countries of the region to think about the regional structures that we need in order to build active cooperation in the future. This is clearly a project that will take some time to mature and longer-term goals also need intermediate steps that point the way forward.
New Zealand recognises and greatly appreciates ASEAN’s role as an anchor of stability and peace in the region for more than 40 years. The adoption of the charter is a further step in its evolution and ASEAN’s blueprints for the establishment for political-security and economic communities embrace universal values of good governance. These set the foundation for the creation of a more secure and prosperous future for all our peoples. Today I want to address three themes that are inherent in building the Asia-Pacific security community. The first is the nature of the opportunity that we have to address the security agenda. The second theme is the criteria that are important in building a regional security community. The third is the possibilities to evolve existing institutions to meet contemporary security priorities.
The basis of any security agenda is the nature of the security environment we wish to achieve. In the current circumstances, we are all very aware of the challenging economic conditions and these issues of instability can easily lead to other forms of instability. That alone creates a fresh opportunity for enhanced regional security mechanisms, and any such mechanisms have to be able to deal with the diverse range of security challenges. These range from terrorism to maritime security and disaster relief. Quite clearly, cooperation between nations is the most effective way of meeting such challenges. Our region is unusually large. It stretches literally from pole to pole; it straddles vast oceans. It is not therefore surprising that each of us sees security through somewhat different lenses.
So where do New Zealand’s interests lie in relation to evolving an Asia-Pacific Security community? New Zealand is actually on the edge of the region – we are within the South Pacific – but even in our part of the world security challenges can affect the wider region. More importantly, we also look out to Asia. It does include almost all of our most important economic partners, but unlike many Asian nations we are sparsely populated, but we do actually have the world’s fifth largest exclusive economic zone. We are an integral part of the region. Therefore, we see ourselves as playing a part in any regional grouping because what happens here in Asia impacts on our economy, on our politics, and on our security. Quite clearly, distance does not insulate us from challenge. For instance, New Zealanders were killed on both 11 September and in Bali. We were one of the first nations affected by H1N1. So these transnational challenges have reinforced our commitment to the security, stability, and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region.
New Zealand has a long history in fact of supporting the regional architecture. We are an ASEAN dialogue partner, we have participated in the ARF, and we are active partners in APEC, the Asia Summit, and the Pacific Island Forums. We want to see these entities evolve towards the next stages of their evolution, and this is where the opportunity actually lies. Countries in the region and interested and engaged in each other’s fortunes and there is a growing sense of a regional security community that has been encouraged by ASEAN. In short, when it comes to security, there is a growing consensus across the region that there is much more that unites us than can potentially divide us.
That then brings me to my second theme: the criteria that should shape or direct the evolution of our regional security community. The first criterion is a consensus on the need for such a community. Regional communities are only formed if there is a sufficient number of existing states who actually see the need and purpose. In doing so, it is essential to give it sufficient capacity and authority to such a community that it can achieve its objectives. The second criterion is effectiveness. Without it, no arrangement will be durable. An effective regional community will have a central role in moderating intra-regional disputes and will have a lead role in promoting regional stability. This effective level of cooperation can only occur if individual nations agree on a sufficient level of common regional purpose.
The third criterion is that any regional security construct must be comprehensive. It means that all states within the region should belong if they so wish, but if any significant state did not join then the comprehensive nature of the organisation would be compromised. Now ASEAN is the premier example of a regional architecture that is developed on the principle of inclusion. It includes a wide variety of states, both large and small, and smaller states in particular see the umbrella of regional organisations as helping to manage their interactions with the larger states within the region and indeed beyond the region. So the inclusion of all states gives voice to different perspectives that exist within the region and ensure that any decisions will in fact stick.
The fourth criterion is setting out what the security community should actually do. Now, of course, ensuring stability is the most important goal but the definition of security is much wider and deeper than traditional views around inter-state conflict. They embrace transnational crime, terrorism, disaster relief, pandemics, environmental issues, and broader resource issues. All of these have shown their potential to cross national boundaries.
That then leads me to my third thing; what actual steps can be made in building new security architecture? I note that the UN Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, in his speech on this very issue in September 2006, said these things:
‘Fortunately the realisation that future peace and prosperity lies in community-building and integration spreading around the region, and the experiences of such fora as the ASEAN+3, APEC, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the East Asia Summit are proving that greater institutional cooperation on issues beyond economic ties is not only desirable, but also attainable within the region. These existing entities hold the seeds for the development of an effective action-oriented body that can make a real difference on issues of peace and security’.
New Zealand agrees with the sentiments of the Secretary General; the shortest and surest path to progress lies in building on the foundations that we already have, and developing existing institutions. This could be seen as a practical intermediate step in building a broader regional community. It also fits with the consensual approach towards institutional building that is a particular characteristic of our extremely diverse region. New Zealand sees the ASEAN Regional Forum has the potential to fulfil this role. It has a wide membership and it is focused on security dialogue, but it will clearly require work to build it into a more effective organisation able to act.
We have welcomed the potential development of the ARF 2020 vision statement. It is our view that the vision statement could focus on five key areas: counter-terrorism and transnational crime; disaster relief; non‑proliferation and disarmament; maritime security; and peacekeeping. Progress on these five areas is a means to develop the ARF towards 2020.
We also believe that the organisation needs a structure, so we think it is time for the ARF to have a secretariat headed by an ARF secretary general. Such a position in such an institutional structure would focus the dialogue; provide a work plan; provide institutional links with other organisations, and indeed within partner states. The ARF could take its cue from the ASEAN rules-based charter, which ASEAN has developed. It then provides the ARF with the ability to build stronger relationships with other international organisations, and in particular the UN, as was signalled by the secretary general. From the South Pacific perspective we would also like to see links with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), an area that has got significant challenges.
In concluding, as Prime Minister Rudd noted, the challenges of the last decade have put increased focus on the feasibility of an Asia-Pacific community. We now have the opportunity to move forward in developing our sense of regional community; by effectively building on the unity that we already have, we can take significant steps towards developing a sustainable regional security community. Thank you.
