Security Issue which Pose the Greatest Threat to Asia-Pacific Regional Order

 

Wichai Chucherd

 

Introduction 

 

The profiles of Asia-Pacific order have been thoroughly changed by the end of the Cold War. Security issues in the region have become more complicated as the change of social context from traditional to contemporary environment, which states are more concern non-military issues, such as political and economic problems and transnational issues. The mainstream of security thought is changing. Military power is held to have lost its efficacy in an era of globalized geo-economic competition. Concern with democracy and human rights seem set to undermine the ASEAN way on the norm of non-intervention. It happens while states are considered to have lost salience. The problem of regime changes, transnational crime, environmental changes, population, and terrorist now rank with the questions of military security, ideology and territorial revelry, which have traditionally made up the security agenda. The approach in dealing with traditional threats is no longer being enough since a new unprecedented kind of agenda such these has emerged.

 

Some security issues are increasingly important. These should be examined. To work on this, I pick up four security issues that quite important in my view. These are democratization and contemporary regimes, the new security agenda, regional vs globalization, and terrorism in the region. I explore these four security issues and analyze their impacts on the region consequently. I present the main features of the regional order and security. Then I analyze and conclude which security issue poses the greatest threat to regional order. I argue that the new security agenda poses the greatest threat to the regional order. Grapple with the new threat, which is transborder by nature, it is impossible for a government to anticipate without a new approach and co-operation with other nations in the region.

 

Democratization and contemporary regimes in the region   

 

Whitehead (1998: 4-22) points out the three major alternative perspectives of contemporary democratization in establishment and consolidation of democratic regimes. Firstly, democratization by natural transmission mechanisms emerges from geographical distribution from one country spread out to her neighbors. Secondly, democratization arises from controlling transmission mechanisms. Major powers such as the US have imposed democratic institutions and ideologies on a large number of countries where they had power. The major power co-operated with the UN to promote the reconciliation and democratization policies. Moreover, they sometime use force to design a regime change. Thirdly, genuine and securely democratization appears on a wide range of social and political consent. In reality, western countries prefer to use the second mechanism to transform the rest of the world to be a democracy. The US imposed democratic institutions in alliance states between the Cold War, and the US used force to compel Afghanistan to be a democracy, for instance.

 

Most of the countries in Asia Pacific region are weak states, while some are closed states. Most of these states lack consent in their countries. Their people comprise a variety of ethnic groups, which is a legacy of boundaries drawing regardless identities of people by their former empire states. Their governments always use force to control the dissent from some ethnic groups in their countries. Posing fully democracy in fast speed, it may creates internal conflicts resulted from ethnic identities and the split in communities (Buzan and Segal 1998: 160-3). Some ethnic groups are trying to gain self-determination and create a new nation-state. Beside these, their communities will split into three parts, those who want to change to be a fully democratic country immediately, those who do not want to change their regime as their individual interests or believes, and those who prefer to change to be a democracy naturally. Facing a dilemma over democracy such these, government has to handle both internal conflicts, and pressure from outside and within their countries. Some countries are more successful, the transition period is going on well, while some are failing. 

 

The failed and weak states always face with a political problem locally and internationally. This problem may broaden to an economic or/and social problem; moreover, it may spread out across border to another countries in the region. For example, political problem in Myanmar caused the tensions between ASEAN and the US (Moller 1998: 1088). Internal conflicts between government and ethnic groups cause refugee, migration flown to neighbor countries, and may cause interstate conflicts. The consequences of the regime change in Indonesia were ethnic and religion conflicts elsewhere in her society, and the weakening of the country. As democracy is the mainstream of the new world order, western states will more threaten some countries in the region to democratize themselves. 

 

The new security agenda in the region  

 

Dupont (2001: 13-8) explains the transnational issues which was presented to be an extended security mode. They comprise environmental degradation, unregulated population movements and transnational crime. The physical environment of the earth is under unprecedented change affected by global emissions of CO2, deforestation, and land and maritime degradation (The UN 2000: 6). Stratospheric ozone depletion caused by CFCs (chlorofluoro-carbons) and carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere have built up greenhouse environment, which affect the increasing of temperature (Greene 2001: 387-412). These have affected directly on Asia, Pacific Ocean and South China Sea. Additionally, there is link between a frequent severe occurrence of the El Nino southern oscillation, a periodic climatic phenomenon that affects the Pacific Ocean, with fire and drought in land (Bankoff 2001: 179). These could place further pressure on the regional food and water resources.

 

Unregulated population movements or UPMs refer to undocumented migration, refugee and displaced persons. They are people who move across borders and within states for economic reasons, a consequence of war, and the effect of environmental degradation. These caused the changing of demography and social conflicts in consequent. Vietnam and Korea war in the mid-1950s, contemporary internal conflicts in Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Philippines, and natural disaster in South Pacific countries caused UPMs have dispersed in the region. These have led to interstate tensions, internal instability in destination countries, environmental degradation, and transnational issues (Dupont 2001: 18-23).

 

Dupont (2001: 23-31) stresses that transnational crime comprise illicit drug trade, arms-trafficking, environmental crime, terrorism, piracy, illegal gambling, crimes of violence, people smuggling, fraud and corruption, money laundering, counterfeiting and cyber-crime. Although some of these issues are not new, their unprecedented power and influence exercised by modern transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and their networks upgraded them to be the core security agenda of the twenty-first century. Ethnic drug trafficking, ethnic Chinese, and the triads, such as the 14K, Sun Yee On, the United Bamboo, and Japanese Yakuza, linked together as a networks of illegal businesses in the Asia Pacific region. They run a complexity and diversity of transnational crime. These have created some consequent problems such as money laundering, corruption and the spread of HIV. Financial flows of their money laundering are massive and unpredictable, and their routes and activities have gone beyond around the region (Willetts 2001: 367). They are weakening government and regime systems, spoiling economic development, destroying states and regional communities and creating military conflicts.

 

     Maritime piracy in the Malacca Strait and South China Sea is an important issue of transnational crime in Asia Pacific. Chalk (1997: 23-39) states that the modern piracy is a complicated threat in the region. It links to other TCOs, former insurgent groups, quasi-military and professional armed groups, and official involvement from some states such as China and Indonesia. It threatens a number of dimensions such as people lives and their property, interstate tensions, and environmental and pollution damage.

 

Regionalism vs globalization: the Asian financial crisis   

 

Globalization is ‘the process whereby many social relations become relatively delinked from territorial geography, so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place’ (Scholte 2001: 14-5). It refers to world-wide communications, transborder organizations, global ecological change, global production, global weaponry, global norms and cultures, and global thinking. Although we benefit the outcome of globalization everyday, there are some negative impacts. Globalization of trade and finance have not been spread equally everywhere; therefore, it have created a significant gap between rich and poor. It caused government lost of control over the contemporary organization of production, exchange, and consumption. States especially weak and closed states are short of an effective mean to control over dynamic and moveable economic activities (Scholte 2001: 533-7). These were presented through the Asian crisis.

 

The Asia crisis was rooted by a growing liberalization of the financial sector. A massive influx of short-term capital in the form of portfolio investments, deregulation facilitated access of domestic institutional borrowers to cheap credits on offshore markets, the low productivity of real estate sector, and the lack of adequate in financial control were the causes of financial collapses, which started from Thailand and then dispersed to many countries in the region (Ruland 2000: 424-7). These caused ASEAN the three harmful effects. Firstly, it decreased the ASEAN’s diplomatic capacity. Secondly, it has shown that ASEAN quite lacks its aspiration to be a regional economic organization. It highlighted the disunity and the lack of organizational resources and structure of ASEAN. Thirdly, it rose the question of ASEAN way, which stress on non-intervention (Narine 2002: 185-9).

 

Ruland (2000: 443-5) indicates the four lessons on the Asia crisis. First, facing a major economic crisis, states tend to ignore cooperation among themselves. Second, For ASEAN, ASEAN way is more important than institutionalized regional organization, and informal and personalized cooperation are normal than commitment on agreements. Third, the diversity of political regimes in ASEAN has caused difficulties in institutionalist reform. However, the Asian crisis has had some positive effects. Narine (2002: 189-91) insists that the Asian crisis has rose the cooperation between ASEAN and East Asia, such as ASEAN 10 plus three and Asian Monetary Fund (AMF) concept. It may pose ASEAN to be an intermediary compromised organization between states such as the US, China, and Japan. Additionally, AFTA may be attracting foreign investment to the region.                     

 

Terrorism in the Asia Pacific  

 

Terrorism is one of transnational issues as Dupont (2001: 24) stressed; however, after the September 11 in the US and the Bali Bombing, terrorism has become an important issue globally and regionally. Although contemporary terrorism has been impressed and discussed in many ways, the perceptions on terrorism have not cleared yet. As Kurlantzick (2000: 19-29) believed that there is increasing of terrorism in the Asia Pacific region regarding the existences of God’s Army, Pattani United Liberation Organization, and United Wa State Army (UWSA). Unfortunately, these groups tend to be a guerrilla group or transnational crime more than international terrorist as he assumed. This is an example of confusion about terrorism definition. 

 

Soesastro (2002: 31-7) emphasizes that the new terrorism is represented by Al-Qaeda and their networks. These terrorists do not present a distinct set of negotiable political demand, they just want to express their wrath and cripple their hostility. Southeast Asia is their heaven and recruiting ground for global terrorism. There are some ethnic-based domestic violence and radical groups in many countries in the region. There are some guerrilla and militant groups, legacy from the Cold War. These groups tend to be recruited easily. In 2001, Singapore and Malaysia arrested members of Jemaah Islamiyah cells, which was linked to Osama bin Ladin. This group was planning to attack American in Singapore. In 2002, the radical Islamic Abu Sayyaf in Philippines was linked with Al-Qaeda: therefore they were responded as terrorist. There are some evidences pointed out that Jamaah Islamiyah and Al-Qaeda benefit Indonesia for their terrorism activities. There are another militant group in Indonesia namely Laskar Jihad, which was established in 2000. This group was believed is a terrorist as Kurlantzick (2000: 26) reported concerning its holy war against Christians in Maluku islands. However, it tends to be an ethic and religion conflict in the country more than global terrorist.

 

Asia Pacific order   

 

Hall and Paul (1999: 2) stress that order is a perception about how social, political, and economic systems are and should be structures. Order and peace to one group of nations may be different to another. The region comprises a variety of countries, which are different in politic, economy and society. It is no doubt that Asia Pacific order should be a contest perception. However, we can bring up the four conditions that were quite accepted generally to be the conditions of the regional order. There are avoiding destructive warfare, living together relatively well, prospering simultaneously, and changing without violence.

 

To control and maintain these conditions, it needs some institutions or actors and their mechanism. The variety of institutions such as states, regional organizations, NGOs, and some mechanism such as sovereignty, agreements, commitments and international law were set to play their role in the regional order. However, these actors and their mechanism always play their roles separately based on their interest. Consequently, to anticipate a complicated problem, it may create some tensions and contests between actors. The problem may not be solved easily.

 

Buzan (1983: 214-42) presents five dimensions of security, politic, economy, society, environment, and military. Among these dimensions, military has dominated security issues for a long time. Scholars and policy makers always identify and solve a problem by using military perception. However, the appearance of globalization, the importance of economy and the rise of the other dimensions have decreased the importance of military dimension.  

 

The core security issue, which poses the greatest threat to regional order   

 

In this part, I analyze the four security issues, democracy and security, the new security agenda in the region, regionalism vs globalization: the Asian financial crisis, and terrorism in the Asia-Pacific by using the four general conditions of regional order (Hall and Palul 1999: 2) as the ultimate goal, and the five security dimensions of Buzan (1983: 214-42) as the important components of regional security to distinguish which poses the greatest threat to regional order. I calculate the threat in short-term and long-term effects, the possibilities, the impacts, and the consequences of the issues.

 

It is believed that democratic states tend not to fight other democracy; therefore, every state should be a democratic state. Most of the countries in the Asia Pacific region have not been a fully democracy yet, while some states are closed states, socialist states, and half-communist states. It is little doubt that some countries such as China, Myanmar, Malaysia, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea would be entreated to change their regimes to be a democratic state by any means. The pressures will continue in long-term consequences. However, North Korea, which is more critical because of her leader’s behavior and the Nuclear weapons capability, will be compelled significantly. In a short-term period, democratization will not pose a critical threat to the region, but their consequences may cause some difficulties locally and regionally. If states changed their behavior and regimes, they will be a partially or fully democracy. On the other hand, if they consist, they will be forced heavily to be a democratic state. It may cause a violent problem in the countries, and then it will spill over to the other countries in the region.

 

In contrast, the new security agenda in the region, such as environmental security, UPMs, and transnational crime, is a shot-term problem. It occurs and has a strong impact directly on the countries and region. It causes a dramatically change of all security dimensions, political difficulties, economic disruption, environmental degradation, social tensions, and armed conflicts. Most of the new security agenda in the region are unprecedented issues, which need a new approach to deal with. These caused some difficulties in the regional order. Firstly, governments in the region have not equipped enough to face with these issues. They cannot solve the problems separately. Secondly, regional organizations and interstate relations in the region have not cooperated enough comparing with the networks of transnational crime. Therefore, they always stay behind TCOs, which are threatening the region. Lastly, many actors in both governmental sector and private sector are interested in the new security agenda; however, they act separately and lack cooperation with each other. Consequently, the tensions and conflicts between these actors are inevitable. The problems should not be solved easily. In short-term consequences, the new security agenda should pose a critical threat to the region. For a long-term period, if the countries in the region more cooperate with each other, it should strengthen regional organizations. These could solve the new security agenda, and crate a regional organization’s capacity to anticipate a variety of problems in the future. If they are not, they will face with the worst case scenario.

 

Globalization has changed the world dramatically; states are losing their sovereignty, interstate relations are being more complex, and social communities are changing. However, these are the consequent impacts of globalization, which concern a wide range of the security issues. The more apparent and direct impact of globalization on the regional order is the impact on economic dimension, the Asian crisis. It is a dilemma over state control and free riding on economic system. Facing globalization, states have to change their economic systems to be the free trade economy. If their societies are ready to transform, it will be better for them and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, most of the countries in the region are not ready and strong enough to transform in a short-term period. Consequently, some of them have to face with a financial crisis and its consequent impacts. However, the crisis likes a vaccine for the regional community. It persuaded them to more concentrate on economic security and the negative impacts of globalization. ASEAN countries and other states in the region are trying to create an economic organization and its mechanism to anticipate the problems such a financial crisis. Although in a short-term period, globalization has posed some significant threats and its consequent impacts on the region, in a long-term period, the region should become more careful on economic security and the influences of globalization.

 

The problem concerning terrorist in the region is more scrutiny. It tends to bring the world to the worst case scenario discoursed by Huntington, the Clash of Civilizations. Crusade war should be awareness for each side. They should hesitate before solving a problem by using their emotions more than deeply thinking. The targets of international terrorist tend to be the western countries and their citizen. Terrorist may operate their activities both inside and outside the western states, which involve many countries in the region. Some of their bases are established in some countries in the region, such as in Indonesia and the southern part of Philippines. They may be compelled to wipe out the terrorist in their territorial. Nevertheless, they may be responded by some mechanism such as preemptive strike or sanctions. This is a dilemma over some countries in the region. The threat of global terrorist to the region order is not a direct threat. However, in a short-term period, it will cause some countries in the region the pressure from the western countries to eliminate terrorist and support resource in their territorial. These may cause some tensions and conflicts between the governments and some groups in their countries. In a long-term period, situation tends to be better. Globalization and a variety of problems should bring the world community to learn more about each other; consequently, western and eastern, north and south, rich and poor should live together relatively well.

          

Conclusion  

 

In conclusion, among the four main security issues in the region, the new security agenda poses the greatest threat to regional order. This threat is a crucial and direct threat, which cause the regional order the contemporary impacts in a short-term period. It needs to be solved immediately, otherwise it will put forward an enlargement problem, which expand from one to all security dimensions and disperse to every country in the region. These will affect a number of difficulties in solving the expansion problem in the future. On the other hand, democracy is not a threat to the regional order by itself, but the pressures for democracy in authoritarian states may effect regional security. This effect will cause the region the problem in a long-term period, which the countries in the region should adjust themselves to be more democracy. For the impacts of globalization such as the Asia crisis, although it posed a contemporary threat to the region, its urgency of cooperation among nations in the region may help them to create an effective institution and mechanism to deal with a further problem. Terrorist is a scrutiny issue. It does not pose a direct threat to the region. However, as its targets are western state specifically the US the only one contemporary major power in the world, it have affected all states in the world, included in the region. This effect come along with the pressures for democracy, which the countries in the region should adapt themselves.    
 

In solving the new security agenda, governments have not well prepared. They tend to use the old approach to deal with the new environment. They ignore a cooperation among nations to anticipate a problem. These cause a fatal problem. The nature of a new security issue has changed to be a transborder and complex problem, and it indeed involves in every security dimension and a variety of actors. To anticipate the new security agenda, governments should more cooperate with each other and they have to think more about regional security. 

 

 

Reference list 

 

Bankoff, G., 2001. ‘Environment, resources, and hazards’ in P. Heenan and M. Lamontagne (eds), The Southeast Asia Handbook, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London.

 

Buzan, B., 1983. People, States and Fear: the national security problem in international relations, Harvester Wheatsheaf Publishers, Sussex.

 

Buzan, B. and Segal, G., 1998. Anticipation the Future, Simon & Schuster, London.

 

Chalk, P., 1997. Grey-area Phenomena in Southeast Asia: Piracy, Drug Trafficking and Political Terrorism, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Canberra.

 

Dupont, A., 2001. East Asia Imperiled: Transnational challenges to security, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

 

Greene, O., 2001. ‘Environmental issues’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 2^nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 387-414.

 

Hall, J. A. and Paul, T.V., 1999. ‘Introduction’ in T.V. Paul and J. A. Hall (eds), International Order and the Future of World Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge.

 

Kurlantzick, J., 2001. ‘Fear moves east: Terror targets the Pacific Rim’, The Washington Quarterly, 24(1)

 

Moller, K., 1998. ‘Cambodia and Burma: the ASEAN way ends here’, Asian Survey, 38(12): 1087-1104.

 

Narine, S., 2002. ‘ASEAN in the aftermath: the consequences of the East Asian economic crisis’, Global Governance, 8((2): 179-194.

 

 

Ruland, J., 2000. ‘ASEAN and the Asian crisis: theoretical implications and practical consequences for Southeast Asian regionalism’, Pacific Review, 13(3): 421-451

 

Scholte, J.A., 2001. ‘The globalization of world politics’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 2^nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 13-32.

 

Scholte, J.A., 2001. ‘Global trade and finance’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 2^nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 519-539.

 

Soesastro, H., 2002. ‘Southeast Asia and Global Terrorism: Implication on state security and human security’, The Indonesian Quarterly, XXX(1): 31-37.

 

The UN, Governing council of the United Nations Environment Programme, 2000. Discussion papers presented by the Executive Director, Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Sixth special session, May 2000, Malmo, Sweden.

 

Whiehead, L., 1998. ‘Three international dimensions of Democratization’, in L. Whitehead (ed.), The International Dimensions of Democratization, Oxford University Press, New York: 3-25.

 

Willetts, P., 2001. ‘Transnational actors and international organizations in global politics’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 2^nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 356-383.