As Delivered:
The Korean Perspective
Lee Sang Hee, Minister of National Defense, Republic of Korea
Distinguished defence ministers, security experts, ladies and gentlemen, I am very honoured to have a chance to speak at this meaningful forum for promoting peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Firstly, I would like to thank IISS Director General, Dr John Chipman, as well as officials of the government of Singapore, for this precious occasion. It is a delight to see familiar faces from last year again. To those that I am meeting for the first time, I offer my warm regards as a colleague working with you to bring peace and prosperity to the world.
Even as we face an increase in anxiety over an uncertain future, along with an economic recession, North Korea ignored repeated warnings by the international community and conducted a second nuclear test on 25 May. This has increased uncertainty over security in the Korean Peninsula, as well as in the region. In the past, the Shangri-La Dialogues have made significant contributions toward regional stability and peace. It is my hope that this year's Shangri-La Dialogue, which is taking place amid an uncertain security climate, serves as a venue for many meaningful discussions that will offer hope and courage to the people of the world. The topic of my presentation today is ‘Building an Asia-Pacific Security Community: The Korean Perspective.’
Today's international community is undergoing drastic changes. The concept of security has expanded beyond its traditional domains in political-military affairs, becoming more comprehensive in scope to include economic, social, and environmental aspects. Even as political and military tensions, along with local conflicts, persist due to a variety of factors, there has been an increase in new security threats including terrorism, piracy, infectious diseases, and cyber threats. The new security threats have various sources and take on many forms, and their areas of effect have also become wider. Due to globalisation and rapid informationisation, these threats are proliferating at increasing speeds. It is also increasingly difficult to predict these threats with any certainty and this calls for response methods of a new paradigm.
The security climate in the Asia-Pacific, a region that accounts for 41% of the world’s population, 58% of the world’s GDP and is home to major powers, is no exception to this phenomenon. Conflicts and confrontations stemming from religious and territorial issues continue, along with a continuous increase in non-military and transnational threats, including terrorist activities in India and Pakistan, the Sichuan earthquake, and new strains of the influenza virus. I believe building a regional security community is essential to responding effectively to the new security threats we face today. To this end, we should set as one of our role models the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has made great contributions throughout Europe in arms control, conflict prevention, human rights protection and the promotion of democracy.
Since the late 1980s, a number of countries have called for the establishment of various forms of multilateral security consultative bodies in the Asia-Pacific region. Today, a diverse array of such bodies exist in the region, including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the IISS Asia Security Summit, the Six Party Talks and the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue. The fact that these different bodies overlap and coexist is sure evidence that countries in the region are keenly aware of the need for establishing a security community. We have also seen many instances of multilateral security cooperation through these bodies in various areas. Examples include combating piracy in the Malacca Strait, as well as providing disaster relief after the earthquake in Sichuan province and the catastrophic tsunami in Indonesia.
However, taking into consideration the level of participation, range of cooperation and problem-solving capabilities as a whole, no security consultative body has developed sufficiently to be called an Asia-Pacific security community, both in name and reality. There are three reasons for this.
The first is what may be called the limits of multilateralism. That is, while there is a greater need to discuss more important pending issues through a multilateral security dialogue, there is a lower possibility of actually solving these problems through such venues because of the conflicting interests of the relevant countries.
The second is the diversity within the Asia-Pacific region. Unlike Europe, where the OSCE has successfully taken root, the Asia-Pacific region consists of nations that are significantly different from one another in their individual histories, political structures, economic conditions, and racial and religious make-ups. This diversity is making it difficult to derive a common interest that would serve as a driver for multilateral cooperation.
The third is the unique nature of the Northeast Asia security climate. Major countries have overlapping stakes in the region, whilst remnants of the Cold War, such as the divided Korean Peninsula, remain. Historical legacies, little experience in successful regional multilateral security cooperation, and the North Korean nuclear issue are also factors that complicate the building of an Asia-Pacific security community.
In order to overcome these limitations and make an Asia-Pacific security community a reality and not just a dream, it would be appropriate to search for a phased and gradual strategy with which to proceed under mid and long-term objectives. This would entail what I would call a ‘crawl-walk-run strategy’ for building an Asia-Pacific security community, whereby we would start with feasible steps in a phased and gradual manner. I would like to make the following two proposals for specific plans with which to push forward.
Firstly, we should further vitalise existing regional multilateral security consultative bodies such as the ARF and the Shangri-La Dialogue. We should begin by strengthening cooperation at the Asia-Pacific level in areas where cooperation is easier, such as disaster relief. I believe a good starting point would be to build a global disaster management system in the Asia-Pacific region, which I proposed last year at this forum. Once we gain cooperative experiences in areas where cooperation is easier and form sufficient basis for mutual trust, we will be able to expand our scope of cooperation to include important security issues such as arms control and conflict prevention, like the OSCE. In addition, we can gradually increase the number of participating nations and upgrade the level of delegates.
Secondly, we should seek to develop the multilateral security consultative bodies existing at the sub-regional level and work to organically link these bodies. As a precursor to an Asia-Pacific security community that encompasses the entire region, we can strengthen security cooperation at the sub-regional level, such as in Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. Expanding such cooperation further to construct an Asia-Pacific security community could prove to be a feasible and realistic alternative.
Korea is currently in a unique situation in which traditional military threats exist alongside non-military and transnational threats. North Korea remains a military threat with its 1,119,000 regular troops and its continued development of WMDs, including nuclear weapons and missiles. At the same time, Korea faces other non-military and transnational threats as well. To give you some examples, two Korean vessels and twenty-seven sailors have been captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia and a recent act of terrorism in Yemen left eight Koreans dead or wounded. In addition, Korea suffered a total of 32,000 of cyber attacks, including 7,900 in the public sector. Korea has placed a strategic focus on realizing comprehensive security to respond effectively against security threats across the spectrum, readying itself against North Korean threats by maintaining a solid military readiness posture whilst hurrying its preparations against new non-military and transnational threats that are on the rise. Undoubtedly, there is a limit to what one nation's military power can do against non-military and transnational threats. Only when domestic and international capabilities are pooled together can we have an effective response.
Domestically, Korea has endeavoured to pool all available capabilities to attain an integrated defence posture that incorporates civilian, government, and military resources for rapid response against threats such as terrorism and large-scale disasters. Externally, Korea has extended its defence diplomacy to the Asia-Pacific region and actively participated in such multinational efforts as the Khaan Quest exercises, the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) Capstone exercises, the Cobra Gold exercises, and the ARF disaster relief exercise. These endeavours to strengthen cooperation at the regional and international level, which are extensions of our military diplomacy, will be reinforced in the coming years under the Lee Myung Bak administration as it seeks to realise its diplomatic and security vision of a global Korea. Furthermore, Korea has been participating in the Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism (NEAPSM) Working Group meetings within the Six Party Talks, which aims to lay a foundation for a multilateral security cooperative body in Northeast Asia.
As you are aware, however, North Korea refused to participate in the Six Party Talks and went ahead with a second nuclear test on 25 May. This is a clear violation of the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the agreements made through the Six Party Talks, and UN Security Council Resolution 1718. It is a serious challenge to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has made the solution of the North Korean nuclear issue more difficult. As a result, the working group meetings for building a foundation for regional multilateral security cooperation have not been as active as hoped. However, once the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved within the framework of the Six Party Talks and once the NEAPSM Working Group becomes more active, we will be able to gradually develop the Six Party Talks into a multilateral security cooperative regime.
Our government will work to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue peacefully through close consultation with members of the Six-Party Talks and the international community, and will do all it can to help the Six Party Talks take its place as a multilateral security cooperative body in Northeast Asia. In order for our efforts to come to fruition, we need your support and cooperation. We ask for your active support as the UN Security Council and the international community take proper measures against North Korea's wrong-doings so that it will give up its nuclear developments and return to the Six Party Talk frame as soon as possible. I believe it will be possible to build an Asia-Pacific security community in the near future if Korea and the international community pool their collective efforts through the aforementioned crawl-walk-run strategy. I would like to end my presentation with my hope that we work together to this end. Thank you for your attention.
