As prepared:
The 9thIISS Asia Security Summit: The Shangri-La Dialogue
Sixth Plenary Session
Singapore, 6 June 2010
“RENEWING REGIONAL SECURITY ARCHITECTURE”
Purnomo Yusgiantoro
Indonesia
1. Please allow me first, to express my thanks and appreciation to International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for the invitation. I will begin to share my view on the assigned topic of Renewing Regional Security Architecture by stating that we, who live in the region, should feel fortunate to have experienced relatively conducive environment for a reasonably long period of time. In the absence of an open war, countries in the region have been able to focus on economic development, social progress, and even for some of usto move on political reform and democratization.
2. Yet, just the absence of open war should not be enough to ensure genuine peace and sustained stability. In fact if we look more deeply beyond the facade of the relative calm, we can still see clearly security challenges such as non-traditional threats and internal disturbances including separatism and communal conflicts, as well as border disputes and overlapping territorial claims. Hence, the common perception of a weak and inadequate regional security architecture.
3. Indeed, looking at the currently existing features of security arrangements in the region, that basically consist of a plethora of bilateral military alliances and strategic partnerships, as well as sub-regional cooperative groupings for specific purposes, one can understand the serious doubt of about the nature of these kinds of regional security architecture, is commensurate and reflective of the level of seriousness of the existing problems. Yet, in addition to these specific issues, especially, more recently, we in the region have been confronted with new security challenges ranging from terrorism to proliferation of nuclear weapon, as well as a series of non-traditional threats that include piracy, illicit drug trafficking, illegal fishing, peoples smuggling, communicable diseases and natural disasters. All of these are more than sufficient to convince us of the urgent need in the region to develop a stronger and more coherent security architecture.
4. While we increasingly face security challenges and thus, an urgent need for adequate responses, developments both at the global and at the regional levels, offers us with a fresh opportunity to reactivate our efforts to develop our desired regional security architecture. First, among these major developments is the shift of the global power centered from being unipolar to becoming multipolar. This trend, combined with the move of geopolitical and geo-economic gravitational pull toward Asia, presents the region with the opportunity to exert itself as real master of its own interests, and no longer the object of interests of others. Parallel with this, is the changing pattern of international governance from unilateralism to multilateralism, which is surely creating a more conducive environment for regional architecture building. Another development is the shifting preference in the use of multidimensional power from hard power to soft or even smart power. Lastly, the integrative forces in the region itself, initially driven by economic requisites and interests, has without doubt, expanded into the area of security. Thus, in my view, it is now opportune for us to proceed with the idea of “renewing the regional security architecture” as suggested in the Dialogue.
5. Based on recent experiences, there usually arises several basic questions when discussing this topic. The first pertains to the structure of the architecture, that is whether it is going to be a two-tier building: one main building consisting of a concert of major powers acting as security guarantor, and a pavilion accommodating the smaller members as benefactors of the guarantee but with a much lesser role in the decision making process. Or, a single building architecture where all members, big and small have the same status of equal footing and, consequently, bear the same responsibility.Here, although I am fully aware that democracy is not the easiest form of governance, my preference is clearly on the single building architecture, which I believe will prevent us from falling into the trap of zero-sum game and avoid any form of hegemonism. Second question is on the membership, and here the choice is between exclusivity and inclusivity. I am definitely in favor of inclusivity which covers both theintra and inter regions. Inclusivity is marked by a community of nations in the region working hand in hand in promotion of regional peace, stability and prosperity. Third issue is whether the security architecture should be separated, linked, or integrated with the regional economic architecture which is currently under a more advanced state of discussions. My answer to this question depends on the levels of the work attained. For technical work separation is quite normal as it moves up to the political level. Synergy through appropriate linkages would therefore be desirable, and when it comes to strategic visions at the summit level, there will certainly be a need for an integrative approach. Last question: should we just disregard the existing features in the current architecture, and create a completely new, all encompassing institutional supra-structure, or should we build upon the already existing instruments? In this regard, I may have high-hanging dreams and lofty ideals, but basically I am a pragmatist. And as a pragmatist the latter option is definitely more attractive to me. So, let me briefly substantiate my option.
6. It should not come as a surprise that I wish to underline the potentials of ASEAN driven initiatives as a model, more particularly the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), as the main feature of our regional security architecture. I can sense that many of you are silently laughing at me for bringing up an outdated proposition. Yes, I am aware of the presently doubtful reputation of the ARF as a talk-shop forum. Letme nevertheless try to draw your attention on some fresh developments that could serve as impetus for the empowerment of the ARF. First is the determination of all ASEAN members themselves to build an ASEAN political and security community that will change their own skeptical attitude and reinvigorate their commitment toward the ARF. Secondly, the accession of so many ASEAN partners to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). With all the regional security stakeholders sharing the same code of conduct, it is expected that interrelationship among them will be more orderly. Third, the most recent decision by ASEAN to establish the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM Plus) represents an important step in reinforcing the ARF based security architecture with a strong defense component. And please bear in mind that ASEAN anchor role in this regional security architecture concept is credibly assured by its strong commitment to a South-East Asia as a Zone Of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN), as well as South-East Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (SEANWFZ).
7. Before concluding, I would say that we are fully aware of the dynamics of regional cooperation, including one that will renew regional security architecture. However, I am confident that ASEAN will remain central in bringing equilibrium to the region. Let me conclude by admitting that we still have a long way to go and many aspects to improve. But I think we are already in possession of sufficient seeds and ingredients to proceed with our effort to renew our regional security architecture. And I believe that the right time to start is now.
Thank you for your attention and wish you success in your deliberation.
