thayer asia-pacific security order

8/14/2019 Thayer Asia-Pacific Security Order

1/41

Regional Security

rc ec ure

Professor Carl Thayer

Security Studies (Regional)

September 24, 2009


2/41

Security Architecture ecur ty r er

Securit Architecture in the Asia-Pacific Region

Asia-Pacific community


3/41

Collective Security Collective Defence

Security Community


4/41

e n e e n n nywould-be aggressor Permanent potential alliance against an unknown

enemy on behalf of an unknown victim United Nations through Security Council

Alternative to lobal s stem of competing alliances (balance of power)


5/41

ree con ons:1. The collective security coalition must be able

powerful adversary.

of what constitutes a stable and acceptableinternational order

3. Major powers must share a minimum of olitical solidarit and moral communit


6/41

ar er ap er

Article 51

inherent right of individual or collective self-defenceif an armed attack occurs against a Member of theUnited Nations, until the Security Council has takenmeasures necessary to maintain international peace

and security.


7/41

ar er ap er

Article 52 Nothing in the present Charter precludes the

existence of regional arrangements or agencies for

dealing with such matters relating to thema n enance o n erna ona peace an secur y asare appropriate for regional action provided that

are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.


8/41

Korean War

Collective security or collective defence?

North Atlantic Treat Or anisation NATO South East Asia Treaty Organisation

Laotian crisis 1961-62


9/41

Collective De ence Alliances are one form of collective defence

coalitions, mutual assistance agreements Alliances are formal a reements that led e

states to cooperate in using their militaryresources against a specific state or states.

Alliances usually obligate one or more of the signatories to use force or to considerthe use of force - unilaterally or inconsultation - in specified circumstances.


10/41

Functions o Alliances

to them, and allow for an international divisionof labour;

Assist the signatories in maintaining theirinternal securit ;

Serve to restrain the behaviour of other states;

anarchical international system (e.g. by drawinga line, or aligning nations)


11/41

US Hub and S okes Modelapanapan

SouthSouthKoreaKorea

Phili inesPhili ines


12/41

Group of states cooperate to manage theirdis utes and avoid war b seekin to mutethe effects of security dilemma

- - assumption other nations seek peace

ecu y emm - e e s ve c o y o estate is perceived as a threat by another


13/41

attained a sense of community or collectiveidentit

adopted formal or informal institutions andractices

become integrated hold de endable ex ectations of eaceful

change rule out the use of force to solve dis utes


14/41

Amalgamated Security Community Formal mer er of two or more inde endent

states into a single larger unit with common

government after amalgamation the United States

Pluralistic Security Community Member states retain legal independence of

their separate governments t e n te tates an ana a


15/41

1. Total absence of armed conflict or prospects forconflict among members

. sence o compet t ve m tary u -up orarms race

. x s ence o orma or n orma ns u ons anpractices to manage and resolve conflicts

. integration as a precondition of peaceful


16/41

Nascent Phase States explore coordination mechanisms, accept

Ascendant Phase , ,

institutions, collective identify, dependable expectationsof peaceful change

Mature Phase Loosely and tightly coupled security communities


17/41

. ypes o ecur y r er

Balance of Power

Multilateral community-based security Concert of great powers Common security institution

Collective security


18/41

Power Balance in Asia-Pacific is Mixed

Part balance of power China advocates multipolarity Part hegemonic

U.S. alliance s stem lus strate ic artners US pursues liberal grand strategy

-multilateralism


19/41

. Security Architecture

Association of South East Asian NationsASEAN 1967

Five Power Defence Arrangements FPDA1971

Pacific Island Forum PIF (1971) formerly South Pacific Forum (SPF)

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation APEC(1989)


20/41

Security Architecture

Council for Security Cooperation in theAsia-Pacific CSCAP 1993 One and a half track

ASEAN Regional Forum ARF (1994) Asia-Europe Meeting ASEM (1996) Shan hai Coo eration Or anisation SCO

(1996) Formerly Shanghai 5 (1996)


21/41

Security Architecture

Shangri-La Dialogue (7)

registered charity

Six Part Talks 6 Korea peninsula focus

E st Asi mmit EA 4 ASEAN Treat of Amity and Cooperation


22/41

ARF + ADMMPlus

APT China Japan,South Korea

EAS Russia and


23/41

Five Power Defence Arrangements

United Kingdom withdrawal east of Suez defence of Malaysia and Singapore indivisible

FPD orme 7 consultative body Malaysia, Singapore, Australia,

Confidence building measure between Malaysia andSingapore

annual joint training exercises

Integrated Air Defence System (IADS)


24/41

Inte rated Area Defence S stem 2000

Expanding role in addressing asymmetricthreats 2003

Facilitates cooperation in other areas Malaysia in East Timor Singapore and NZ in Afghanistan

Only effective multilateral military structure

Asia.


25/41

ASEAN Regional Forum

rst a rman s tatement :to foster constructive dialogue andconsu tat on on po t ca an secur ty ssues

of common interest and concern; andto ma e s gn cant contr ut ons to e ortstowards confidence-building and

-region.


26/41

- : a rman s a emen

The approach shall be evolutionary,takin lace in three broad sta esnamely development of preventive diplomacy

elaboration of approaches to conflicts .


27/41

Brunei China M anmar

Indonesia European Union Cambodia

Philippines South Korea North Korea

Thailand PNG Pakistan

-Australia United States Bangladesh

ana a aos r an a


28/41

ARF Work Program

ISM on SAR 1995-97

ISM on PKO 1995-97

ISM Disaster Relief 1995-99 + 2005

ISG on CBMs 1995-


29/41

Shangri-La Dialogue

Initiated by International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in 2002 Participation by defence ministers from 15

countries plus 6 deputy ministers or senior officials IISS: the best available vehicle in the

Asia-Pacific region for developing andchanelling astute and effective publicpolicy on defence and security.


30/41

Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, China,France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia,

, , , , , ,Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor Leste, UK, US, Vietnam


31/41

. none of our existin re ional

mechanisms as currently configured

spectrum of dialogue, cooperation andac on on econom c an po camatters and future challenges to

security. Kevin Rudd, Address to the Asia Society

Sydney June 4, 2008


32/41

K n R A P mm n

Prime Minister Rudd proposed: a

entire Asia-Pacific region includingt e n te tates, apan, na, n aIndonesia and the other states of the

region.


33/41

s a ac ccommunity

s a ac ccommunity

ARFARFAPECAPEC


34/41

APT at ARF atworkingeve

Hong Kong& Taiwan

+ Russia

EU + SouthAmerica


35/41

Umbrella

G6/8/10?

E Ssecurity

APECeconomic

issuesissues


36/41

ChinaChinaJapanJapan

Core Group

IndonesiaIndonesiaIndiaIndia

AustraliaAustralia


37/41

USAUSA

ChinaChinaJa anJa an

IndonesiaIndonesiaIndiaIndia Group of 8

AustraliaAustraliaSouthKoreaSouthKorea

uss auss a


38/41

. .-hard security threats and provides for

- Korean peninsula Internationally networked terrorism

na s engagemen p aces a ecentre of all regional issues


39/41

w n n e epen en e eAsia-Pacific Region

Spread of cooperative security norms

regimes and institutions

Non-traditional (soft) security issuesincreasin l on a enda


40/41

the Asia-Pacific Region

u t p e arc tectures ea w t ar

and soft security challenges Global and regional dynamics shapethe regional security architecture

Regional dynamics are complex, fluid


41/41

Regional Security

rc ec ure

Professor Carl Thayer

Security Studies (Regional)September 24, 2009

thayer asia-pacific security order

Documents