the “asean way” and asian regional security

15
Politics & Policy , Volume 35, No. 1 (2007): 42-56. Published by Blackwell Publishing Inc. © The Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved. The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security 1 Yukiko Nishikawa Mahidol University This article considers a security community in Asia through looking at the “ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] way.” It examines the ASEAN way through dispute management tactics in Southeast Asia and argues that from the member-states’ perceptions and attitudes toward disputes, ASEAN’s approach is explained as a conflict management rather than resolution style. The approach involves limitations on ASEAN’s readiness to resolve disputes in practice as a collective regional body. ASEAN’s approach suggests the need for international relations theorists to consider ASEAN’s style without being conditioned by assumptions arising out of existing theories, recognizing the usefulness of a mode of security cooperation that reflects the region’s particular character. Southeast Asia has previously drawn more attention to its economic plight or potential, rather than its political or security characteristics. However, in recent years, the focus has increasingly shifted toward political and security matters. This is largely because of tensions that persist in the region, not only among the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) states, but also those in the wider Asia-Pacific region. These include tensions between North and South Korea, Russia and Japan over the Kurile Islands, Japan and North Korea, and China and Taiwan. Growing uncertainty over the future U.S. security role in the region, the impact of China’s expanding power on the regional security formula, and contentious, complex issues around the South China Sea all increase security concerns in the region. Moreover, a new security threat emerged in the post- September 11 international paradigm—terrorism—also enhancing such considerations in the region. In practice, the security system in Asia has been predominantly bilaterally based (Caballero-Anthony 2002, 534). However, collective approaches to security have drawn attention in recent years. While bilateral ties will continue, supplementary security forms seem to be at the center of debates, which include the wider Asia-Pacific region. Although the region had previously drawn little attention to its style Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USAPOLPPolitics & Policy1555-56232007 by the Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved.? 20073514256Original Articles The “ASEAN Way”Nishikawa

Upload: yukiko-nishikawa

Post on 21-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Politics amp Policy

Volume 35 No 1 (2007) 42-56 Published by Blackwell Publishing Inccopy The Policy Studies Organization All rights reserved

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo and Asian Regional Security

1

Yukiko Nishikawa

Mahidol University

This article considers a security community in Asia through lookingat the ldquoASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] wayrdquo Itexamines the ASEAN way through dispute management tactics inSoutheast Asia and argues that from the member-statesrsquo perceptions andattitudes toward disputes ASEANrsquos approach is explained as a conflictmanagement rather than resolution style The approach involveslimitations on ASEANrsquos readiness to resolve disputes in practice asa collective regional body ASEANrsquos approach suggests the need forinternational relations theorists to consider ASEANrsquos style withoutbeing conditioned by assumptions arising out of existing theoriesrecognizing the usefulness of a mode of security cooperation that reflectsthe regionrsquos particular character

S

outheast Asia has previously drawn more attention to itseconomic plight or potential rather than its political or securitycharacteristics However in recent years the focus has increasinglyshifted toward political and security matters This is largely because oftensions that persist in the region not only among the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nation (ASEAN) states but also those in the widerAsia-Pacific region These include tensions between North and SouthKorea Russia and Japan over the Kurile Islands Japan and NorthKorea and China and Taiwan Growing uncertainty over the futureUS security role in the region the impact of Chinarsquos expanding poweron the regional security formula and contentious complex issuesaround the South China Sea all increase security concerns in theregion Moreover a new security threat emerged in the post-September 11 international paradigmmdashterrorismmdashalso enhancingsuch considerations in the region

In practice the security system in Asia has been predominantlybilaterally based (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534) However collectiveapproaches to security have drawn attention in recent years Whilebilateral ties will continue supplementary security forms seem to be atthe center of debates which include the wider Asia-Pacific regionAlthough the region had previously drawn little attention to its style

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford UK and Malden USAPOLPPolitics amp Policy1555-56232007 by the Policy Studies Organization All rights reserved 20073514256Original Articles

The ldquoASEAN

WayrdquoNishikawa

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

43

of security cooperation it has now forced scholars and policy makersto examine its collective approach to security and politicalcooperation The launch of the East Asian Community illustratessuch tendencies in the region The idea of a security community isnow becoming fashionable in contemporary Southeast and East Asianstudies

The concept of a security community refers to ldquogroups of stateswhich have developed a long-term habit of peaceful interaction andruled out the use of force in settling disputes with other members of thegrouprdquo (Acharya 2001 1) Thus understood the idea of a securitycommunity can be illustrated to a certain degree by the regionrsquos disputemanagement mechanisms

2

Different approaches to regional securityadopted in different regions reflect differing attitudes toward disputesand dispute management Regional approaches to security and conflictmanagement in Asia have been remarkably different from those foundin other regions (Leifer 1999 25) Examining the ldquoAsian wayrdquo to disputemanagement mirrors underlying regional processes and systems in theregion

This article examines an aspect of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo by focusingon dispute management tactics including the handling of both intra-and extra-regional disputes Although analysis might include disputesboth between and within states this study restricts itself to intra-regional arrangements arising out of interstate disputes in the regionIt hopes to highlight a dimension essential to considering the design offuture security architecture in the region The study focuses on ASEANas this offers concrete examples of dispute management over a 30-yearperiod In addition various analyses and studies have been undertakenon the approaches of ASEAN offering a wide variety of available viewsand opinions

The article is divided into three sections The first explores brieflythe overall background of regional security in Southeast Asia providinga broad regional context on security issues The second section focuseson ASEANrsquos approaches to disputeconflict putting forward theoreticalperspectives on conflict and security and examining ASEANrsquosdistinctive approach toward dispute management The third sectionexamines the factors characterizing the ASEAN approach to conflictconcluding by noting the crucial requirements for the design of a futureregional community

44

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Regional Security in Southeast Asia

Whether in relation to geopolitical security or economic affairsSoutheast Asia has often been viewed through the framework of arealist perspective toward international relations As realists emphasizethe region maintains the highest respect of state sovereignty andfeatures struggles for power between states each trying to maximizetheir national interests

3

Competitive military modernization programsgrowth in defense expenditure and the weakness of regional securityinstitutions strengthen realist arguments This view sees the logic anddynamics of balance-of-power competition dominating relations in theregion Yet at the same time this framework stands in marked contrastto recent debates concerning the changing nature of security relationsin the wider Asia-Pacific region The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)represents a new framework based on neoliberal institutionalprinciples designed to bring into being a security community in theregion (Acharya 1997 Higgot 1994 Kerr 1994) Moreover in recentyears the constructivist view has become increasingly influentialemphasizing the importance of identity in shaping regional security(Garofano 2002 504) The argument reminds us of the debate overwhether ldquoAsian valuesrdquomdashor ldquoASEAN valuesrdquomdashhave a role indetermining economic political and security arrangements Thesethree distinctive viewsmdashrealist neoliberal and constructivistmdashdoexplain major arrangements of the ARF (506)

ASEAN Norms Historical Legacies

Contrary to the claim that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo represents a collectiveview security arrangements in Southeast Asia have never developedcollective approaches (Simon 1998 196) Instead the dominant formof security arrangement in the region has been bilateral This suggeststhat there are certain behavioral norms that define approaches tosecurity among Southeast Asian countries The regionrsquos first andforemost principle with perhaps the greatest influence over security andconflict management is protection of sovereignty Despite importantchanges in the international system during the last decade leading toan erosion of state sovereignty ASEAN states have continued toemphasize this traditional concept (Ayoob 1995) Similar to otherldquoThird Worldrdquo countries the experience of colonialism and imperialism

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

45

continues to provide a basis for ASEAN states to protect theirsovereignty (Busse 1999 46-8 Caballero-Anthony 1998 42-5 Jackson1993)

This key norm of ASEAN statesmdashmaintaining a commitment tothe idea of state sovereigntymdashcan be best viewed as a historical legacyof the region The idea of sovereignty has served as a legal frameworkfor states in the region and has been strictly maintained over the last 30years The regionrsquos experience of colonialism and of communistuprisings within a Cold War regional environment influenced ASEANstates in their approach to and compliance with this principle It wastherefore possible for ASEAN states belatedly joining the internationalsystem to rely on state sovereignty to overcome dependencyrelationships and to gain an equal status within modern internationalpolitics (Busse 1999 46) The principle also became a protectionagainst the internal and external weaknesses of ASEAN countriesASEAN nations have experienced difficulties in maintaining statehoodsince independence encountering problems in defending themselvesfrom other states while dealing with domestic challenges The regionwas also placed in a volatile position during the Cold War facingpressures from both the United States and the Soviet UnionRespecting the norm of sovereignty therefore provided a degree ofprotection from external threats (Busse 1999 47 Jackson 1993) andcontinues to influence the attitudes and approaches of membercountries toward regional order

Political culture in Southeast Asia includes an inheritance fromprecolonial political and social practices Most of the precolonialpolitical systems developed nonformal and noncontractualrelationships (Wolters 1982) Most Southeast Asian states were inreality ruled by small elite circles underpinned by patronage networksDespite the establishment of formal political institutions and legalframeworks the result was not a bureaucratic system as personalisticand informal patterns of rule persisted (Busse 1999 48) As a resultboth internal and external political arrangements were based on rule bya small number of leaders whose successful management of personalpower relationships with local rulers (for domestic matters) and withthe small number of leaders of other states (for regional matters)determined their countryrsquos future direction Indeed public debatesurrounding policy or criticism is very rare in most Southeast Asian

46

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

polities Given the strong reliance on personal rule the more formal andlegalistic grounds typical of rational bureaucracies did not becomeestablished Southeast Asian political practices

Conflict Management Mechanisms in Southeast Asia

Conflict management (or resolution) mechanisms refer to theprocesses techniques methods and strategies that are applied inorder to manage or resolve a conflict (Michell 1981) A cleardistinction is made in the literature between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andldquomanagementrdquo Conflict

resolution

involves the elimination andtermination of conflict an outcome in which fundamental differencesand grievances have been resolved Conflict

management

involves theelimination of violence or a de-escalation of hostilities in which thecause(s) of conflict have not however been eliminated (Azar andBurton 1986) Conflict management does not necessarily encompassattempts to remove the cause(s) of conflict although it does not denythe possibility of addressing them Conflict resolution is thus a morecomprehensive term and a more ambitious concept as it refers toattempts to address and resolve fundamental sources of dispute

Conflict management mechanisms include any actions orprocedures that may be utilized in the process of resolving andmanaging a dispute Traditionally four major processes are includedin handling conflict conflict avoidance conflict prevention conflictsettlement and conflict resolution (Michell 1981 253-79) Regionalorganizations commonly employ various techniques or strategies inorder to handle disputes such as confidence building deterrencenonintervention isolation intermediation community buildingassurance and intervention The conflict management process couldinclude formal institutionalized methods informal methods (includingtacit cooperation among the parties) or a combination of the twoIn practice different regional organizations employ distinctivemechanisms and methods There are several factors for regionalorganizations to consider when deciding which conflict mechanism toemploy including for instance the nature of the conflict and the desiredoutcome sought by the organization The choice of method (and thescale of its involvement) would also depend on institutional capacityWhile other factors may influence the approach to be taken one of the

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

47

critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization wasestablishedmdashthat is the organizationrsquos goals objectives and aspirations

These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of theconflict reduction mechanisms available Therefore the member-statesrsquocompliance with norms and rules will influence the organizationrsquosperspective At this point the kind of customarily exercisedcommunication and socialization patterns among member-states has acritical impact Similarly the degree of institutionalization of normsand rules will have some importance in practice Given the variousfactors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanismsand considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region it is notsurprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within whichregional organizations should work Each regional organizationdevelops its own unique dispute management tactics thereby creatingtheir own security formula These reflect the nature of conflicts in theregion and the relationships communication and socializationpractices of each member

Managing Disputes The ASEAN Way

Conflict studies provide some insight into certain factors thatinfluence and characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute managementHowever conflict resolution theory by its very name gives priority to

resolving

conflicts It is a question however whether ASEAN as acollective body inevitably attempts to

resolve

conflicts on its agenda Asnoted earlier there is a distinction between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andconflict ldquomanagementrdquo While the former addresses the cause(s) ofconflict the latter is less far-reaching in its approach seeking to reducetensions between parties and if possible to break the impasse Ingeneral ASEANrsquos approach might be more appropriately described asa conflict ldquomanagementrdquo style

The territorial dispute over Sabah between the Philippines andMalaysia provides a good example of ASEANrsquos conflict managementapproach

4

The dispute emerged in the 1960s and remains unresolvedFor this reason many cite the dispute as an example of ASEANrsquosweakness of its failure as a regional organization to resolve disputes

5

In fact ASEAN has not directly taken a lead to

resolve

the dispute Ithas played a role instead however in reducing tension between theparties The principles enshrined within ASEAN such as ldquorestraintrdquo

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 2: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

43

of security cooperation it has now forced scholars and policy makersto examine its collective approach to security and politicalcooperation The launch of the East Asian Community illustratessuch tendencies in the region The idea of a security community isnow becoming fashionable in contemporary Southeast and East Asianstudies

The concept of a security community refers to ldquogroups of stateswhich have developed a long-term habit of peaceful interaction andruled out the use of force in settling disputes with other members of thegrouprdquo (Acharya 2001 1) Thus understood the idea of a securitycommunity can be illustrated to a certain degree by the regionrsquos disputemanagement mechanisms

2

Different approaches to regional securityadopted in different regions reflect differing attitudes toward disputesand dispute management Regional approaches to security and conflictmanagement in Asia have been remarkably different from those foundin other regions (Leifer 1999 25) Examining the ldquoAsian wayrdquo to disputemanagement mirrors underlying regional processes and systems in theregion

This article examines an aspect of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo by focusingon dispute management tactics including the handling of both intra-and extra-regional disputes Although analysis might include disputesboth between and within states this study restricts itself to intra-regional arrangements arising out of interstate disputes in the regionIt hopes to highlight a dimension essential to considering the design offuture security architecture in the region The study focuses on ASEANas this offers concrete examples of dispute management over a 30-yearperiod In addition various analyses and studies have been undertakenon the approaches of ASEAN offering a wide variety of available viewsand opinions

The article is divided into three sections The first explores brieflythe overall background of regional security in Southeast Asia providinga broad regional context on security issues The second section focuseson ASEANrsquos approaches to disputeconflict putting forward theoreticalperspectives on conflict and security and examining ASEANrsquosdistinctive approach toward dispute management The third sectionexamines the factors characterizing the ASEAN approach to conflictconcluding by noting the crucial requirements for the design of a futureregional community

44

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Regional Security in Southeast Asia

Whether in relation to geopolitical security or economic affairsSoutheast Asia has often been viewed through the framework of arealist perspective toward international relations As realists emphasizethe region maintains the highest respect of state sovereignty andfeatures struggles for power between states each trying to maximizetheir national interests

3

Competitive military modernization programsgrowth in defense expenditure and the weakness of regional securityinstitutions strengthen realist arguments This view sees the logic anddynamics of balance-of-power competition dominating relations in theregion Yet at the same time this framework stands in marked contrastto recent debates concerning the changing nature of security relationsin the wider Asia-Pacific region The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)represents a new framework based on neoliberal institutionalprinciples designed to bring into being a security community in theregion (Acharya 1997 Higgot 1994 Kerr 1994) Moreover in recentyears the constructivist view has become increasingly influentialemphasizing the importance of identity in shaping regional security(Garofano 2002 504) The argument reminds us of the debate overwhether ldquoAsian valuesrdquomdashor ldquoASEAN valuesrdquomdashhave a role indetermining economic political and security arrangements Thesethree distinctive viewsmdashrealist neoliberal and constructivistmdashdoexplain major arrangements of the ARF (506)

ASEAN Norms Historical Legacies

Contrary to the claim that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo represents a collectiveview security arrangements in Southeast Asia have never developedcollective approaches (Simon 1998 196) Instead the dominant formof security arrangement in the region has been bilateral This suggeststhat there are certain behavioral norms that define approaches tosecurity among Southeast Asian countries The regionrsquos first andforemost principle with perhaps the greatest influence over security andconflict management is protection of sovereignty Despite importantchanges in the international system during the last decade leading toan erosion of state sovereignty ASEAN states have continued toemphasize this traditional concept (Ayoob 1995) Similar to otherldquoThird Worldrdquo countries the experience of colonialism and imperialism

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

45

continues to provide a basis for ASEAN states to protect theirsovereignty (Busse 1999 46-8 Caballero-Anthony 1998 42-5 Jackson1993)

This key norm of ASEAN statesmdashmaintaining a commitment tothe idea of state sovereigntymdashcan be best viewed as a historical legacyof the region The idea of sovereignty has served as a legal frameworkfor states in the region and has been strictly maintained over the last 30years The regionrsquos experience of colonialism and of communistuprisings within a Cold War regional environment influenced ASEANstates in their approach to and compliance with this principle It wastherefore possible for ASEAN states belatedly joining the internationalsystem to rely on state sovereignty to overcome dependencyrelationships and to gain an equal status within modern internationalpolitics (Busse 1999 46) The principle also became a protectionagainst the internal and external weaknesses of ASEAN countriesASEAN nations have experienced difficulties in maintaining statehoodsince independence encountering problems in defending themselvesfrom other states while dealing with domestic challenges The regionwas also placed in a volatile position during the Cold War facingpressures from both the United States and the Soviet UnionRespecting the norm of sovereignty therefore provided a degree ofprotection from external threats (Busse 1999 47 Jackson 1993) andcontinues to influence the attitudes and approaches of membercountries toward regional order

Political culture in Southeast Asia includes an inheritance fromprecolonial political and social practices Most of the precolonialpolitical systems developed nonformal and noncontractualrelationships (Wolters 1982) Most Southeast Asian states were inreality ruled by small elite circles underpinned by patronage networksDespite the establishment of formal political institutions and legalframeworks the result was not a bureaucratic system as personalisticand informal patterns of rule persisted (Busse 1999 48) As a resultboth internal and external political arrangements were based on rule bya small number of leaders whose successful management of personalpower relationships with local rulers (for domestic matters) and withthe small number of leaders of other states (for regional matters)determined their countryrsquos future direction Indeed public debatesurrounding policy or criticism is very rare in most Southeast Asian

46

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

polities Given the strong reliance on personal rule the more formal andlegalistic grounds typical of rational bureaucracies did not becomeestablished Southeast Asian political practices

Conflict Management Mechanisms in Southeast Asia

Conflict management (or resolution) mechanisms refer to theprocesses techniques methods and strategies that are applied inorder to manage or resolve a conflict (Michell 1981) A cleardistinction is made in the literature between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andldquomanagementrdquo Conflict

resolution

involves the elimination andtermination of conflict an outcome in which fundamental differencesand grievances have been resolved Conflict

management

involves theelimination of violence or a de-escalation of hostilities in which thecause(s) of conflict have not however been eliminated (Azar andBurton 1986) Conflict management does not necessarily encompassattempts to remove the cause(s) of conflict although it does not denythe possibility of addressing them Conflict resolution is thus a morecomprehensive term and a more ambitious concept as it refers toattempts to address and resolve fundamental sources of dispute

Conflict management mechanisms include any actions orprocedures that may be utilized in the process of resolving andmanaging a dispute Traditionally four major processes are includedin handling conflict conflict avoidance conflict prevention conflictsettlement and conflict resolution (Michell 1981 253-79) Regionalorganizations commonly employ various techniques or strategies inorder to handle disputes such as confidence building deterrencenonintervention isolation intermediation community buildingassurance and intervention The conflict management process couldinclude formal institutionalized methods informal methods (includingtacit cooperation among the parties) or a combination of the twoIn practice different regional organizations employ distinctivemechanisms and methods There are several factors for regionalorganizations to consider when deciding which conflict mechanism toemploy including for instance the nature of the conflict and the desiredoutcome sought by the organization The choice of method (and thescale of its involvement) would also depend on institutional capacityWhile other factors may influence the approach to be taken one of the

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

47

critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization wasestablishedmdashthat is the organizationrsquos goals objectives and aspirations

These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of theconflict reduction mechanisms available Therefore the member-statesrsquocompliance with norms and rules will influence the organizationrsquosperspective At this point the kind of customarily exercisedcommunication and socialization patterns among member-states has acritical impact Similarly the degree of institutionalization of normsand rules will have some importance in practice Given the variousfactors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanismsand considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region it is notsurprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within whichregional organizations should work Each regional organizationdevelops its own unique dispute management tactics thereby creatingtheir own security formula These reflect the nature of conflicts in theregion and the relationships communication and socializationpractices of each member

Managing Disputes The ASEAN Way

Conflict studies provide some insight into certain factors thatinfluence and characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute managementHowever conflict resolution theory by its very name gives priority to

resolving

conflicts It is a question however whether ASEAN as acollective body inevitably attempts to

resolve

conflicts on its agenda Asnoted earlier there is a distinction between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andconflict ldquomanagementrdquo While the former addresses the cause(s) ofconflict the latter is less far-reaching in its approach seeking to reducetensions between parties and if possible to break the impasse Ingeneral ASEANrsquos approach might be more appropriately described asa conflict ldquomanagementrdquo style

The territorial dispute over Sabah between the Philippines andMalaysia provides a good example of ASEANrsquos conflict managementapproach

4

The dispute emerged in the 1960s and remains unresolvedFor this reason many cite the dispute as an example of ASEANrsquosweakness of its failure as a regional organization to resolve disputes

5

In fact ASEAN has not directly taken a lead to

resolve

the dispute Ithas played a role instead however in reducing tension between theparties The principles enshrined within ASEAN such as ldquorestraintrdquo

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 3: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

44

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Regional Security in Southeast Asia

Whether in relation to geopolitical security or economic affairsSoutheast Asia has often been viewed through the framework of arealist perspective toward international relations As realists emphasizethe region maintains the highest respect of state sovereignty andfeatures struggles for power between states each trying to maximizetheir national interests

3

Competitive military modernization programsgrowth in defense expenditure and the weakness of regional securityinstitutions strengthen realist arguments This view sees the logic anddynamics of balance-of-power competition dominating relations in theregion Yet at the same time this framework stands in marked contrastto recent debates concerning the changing nature of security relationsin the wider Asia-Pacific region The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)represents a new framework based on neoliberal institutionalprinciples designed to bring into being a security community in theregion (Acharya 1997 Higgot 1994 Kerr 1994) Moreover in recentyears the constructivist view has become increasingly influentialemphasizing the importance of identity in shaping regional security(Garofano 2002 504) The argument reminds us of the debate overwhether ldquoAsian valuesrdquomdashor ldquoASEAN valuesrdquomdashhave a role indetermining economic political and security arrangements Thesethree distinctive viewsmdashrealist neoliberal and constructivistmdashdoexplain major arrangements of the ARF (506)

ASEAN Norms Historical Legacies

Contrary to the claim that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo represents a collectiveview security arrangements in Southeast Asia have never developedcollective approaches (Simon 1998 196) Instead the dominant formof security arrangement in the region has been bilateral This suggeststhat there are certain behavioral norms that define approaches tosecurity among Southeast Asian countries The regionrsquos first andforemost principle with perhaps the greatest influence over security andconflict management is protection of sovereignty Despite importantchanges in the international system during the last decade leading toan erosion of state sovereignty ASEAN states have continued toemphasize this traditional concept (Ayoob 1995) Similar to otherldquoThird Worldrdquo countries the experience of colonialism and imperialism

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

45

continues to provide a basis for ASEAN states to protect theirsovereignty (Busse 1999 46-8 Caballero-Anthony 1998 42-5 Jackson1993)

This key norm of ASEAN statesmdashmaintaining a commitment tothe idea of state sovereigntymdashcan be best viewed as a historical legacyof the region The idea of sovereignty has served as a legal frameworkfor states in the region and has been strictly maintained over the last 30years The regionrsquos experience of colonialism and of communistuprisings within a Cold War regional environment influenced ASEANstates in their approach to and compliance with this principle It wastherefore possible for ASEAN states belatedly joining the internationalsystem to rely on state sovereignty to overcome dependencyrelationships and to gain an equal status within modern internationalpolitics (Busse 1999 46) The principle also became a protectionagainst the internal and external weaknesses of ASEAN countriesASEAN nations have experienced difficulties in maintaining statehoodsince independence encountering problems in defending themselvesfrom other states while dealing with domestic challenges The regionwas also placed in a volatile position during the Cold War facingpressures from both the United States and the Soviet UnionRespecting the norm of sovereignty therefore provided a degree ofprotection from external threats (Busse 1999 47 Jackson 1993) andcontinues to influence the attitudes and approaches of membercountries toward regional order

Political culture in Southeast Asia includes an inheritance fromprecolonial political and social practices Most of the precolonialpolitical systems developed nonformal and noncontractualrelationships (Wolters 1982) Most Southeast Asian states were inreality ruled by small elite circles underpinned by patronage networksDespite the establishment of formal political institutions and legalframeworks the result was not a bureaucratic system as personalisticand informal patterns of rule persisted (Busse 1999 48) As a resultboth internal and external political arrangements were based on rule bya small number of leaders whose successful management of personalpower relationships with local rulers (for domestic matters) and withthe small number of leaders of other states (for regional matters)determined their countryrsquos future direction Indeed public debatesurrounding policy or criticism is very rare in most Southeast Asian

46

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

polities Given the strong reliance on personal rule the more formal andlegalistic grounds typical of rational bureaucracies did not becomeestablished Southeast Asian political practices

Conflict Management Mechanisms in Southeast Asia

Conflict management (or resolution) mechanisms refer to theprocesses techniques methods and strategies that are applied inorder to manage or resolve a conflict (Michell 1981) A cleardistinction is made in the literature between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andldquomanagementrdquo Conflict

resolution

involves the elimination andtermination of conflict an outcome in which fundamental differencesand grievances have been resolved Conflict

management

involves theelimination of violence or a de-escalation of hostilities in which thecause(s) of conflict have not however been eliminated (Azar andBurton 1986) Conflict management does not necessarily encompassattempts to remove the cause(s) of conflict although it does not denythe possibility of addressing them Conflict resolution is thus a morecomprehensive term and a more ambitious concept as it refers toattempts to address and resolve fundamental sources of dispute

Conflict management mechanisms include any actions orprocedures that may be utilized in the process of resolving andmanaging a dispute Traditionally four major processes are includedin handling conflict conflict avoidance conflict prevention conflictsettlement and conflict resolution (Michell 1981 253-79) Regionalorganizations commonly employ various techniques or strategies inorder to handle disputes such as confidence building deterrencenonintervention isolation intermediation community buildingassurance and intervention The conflict management process couldinclude formal institutionalized methods informal methods (includingtacit cooperation among the parties) or a combination of the twoIn practice different regional organizations employ distinctivemechanisms and methods There are several factors for regionalorganizations to consider when deciding which conflict mechanism toemploy including for instance the nature of the conflict and the desiredoutcome sought by the organization The choice of method (and thescale of its involvement) would also depend on institutional capacityWhile other factors may influence the approach to be taken one of the

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

47

critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization wasestablishedmdashthat is the organizationrsquos goals objectives and aspirations

These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of theconflict reduction mechanisms available Therefore the member-statesrsquocompliance with norms and rules will influence the organizationrsquosperspective At this point the kind of customarily exercisedcommunication and socialization patterns among member-states has acritical impact Similarly the degree of institutionalization of normsand rules will have some importance in practice Given the variousfactors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanismsand considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region it is notsurprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within whichregional organizations should work Each regional organizationdevelops its own unique dispute management tactics thereby creatingtheir own security formula These reflect the nature of conflicts in theregion and the relationships communication and socializationpractices of each member

Managing Disputes The ASEAN Way

Conflict studies provide some insight into certain factors thatinfluence and characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute managementHowever conflict resolution theory by its very name gives priority to

resolving

conflicts It is a question however whether ASEAN as acollective body inevitably attempts to

resolve

conflicts on its agenda Asnoted earlier there is a distinction between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andconflict ldquomanagementrdquo While the former addresses the cause(s) ofconflict the latter is less far-reaching in its approach seeking to reducetensions between parties and if possible to break the impasse Ingeneral ASEANrsquos approach might be more appropriately described asa conflict ldquomanagementrdquo style

The territorial dispute over Sabah between the Philippines andMalaysia provides a good example of ASEANrsquos conflict managementapproach

4

The dispute emerged in the 1960s and remains unresolvedFor this reason many cite the dispute as an example of ASEANrsquosweakness of its failure as a regional organization to resolve disputes

5

In fact ASEAN has not directly taken a lead to

resolve

the dispute Ithas played a role instead however in reducing tension between theparties The principles enshrined within ASEAN such as ldquorestraintrdquo

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 4: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

45

continues to provide a basis for ASEAN states to protect theirsovereignty (Busse 1999 46-8 Caballero-Anthony 1998 42-5 Jackson1993)

This key norm of ASEAN statesmdashmaintaining a commitment tothe idea of state sovereigntymdashcan be best viewed as a historical legacyof the region The idea of sovereignty has served as a legal frameworkfor states in the region and has been strictly maintained over the last 30years The regionrsquos experience of colonialism and of communistuprisings within a Cold War regional environment influenced ASEANstates in their approach to and compliance with this principle It wastherefore possible for ASEAN states belatedly joining the internationalsystem to rely on state sovereignty to overcome dependencyrelationships and to gain an equal status within modern internationalpolitics (Busse 1999 46) The principle also became a protectionagainst the internal and external weaknesses of ASEAN countriesASEAN nations have experienced difficulties in maintaining statehoodsince independence encountering problems in defending themselvesfrom other states while dealing with domestic challenges The regionwas also placed in a volatile position during the Cold War facingpressures from both the United States and the Soviet UnionRespecting the norm of sovereignty therefore provided a degree ofprotection from external threats (Busse 1999 47 Jackson 1993) andcontinues to influence the attitudes and approaches of membercountries toward regional order

Political culture in Southeast Asia includes an inheritance fromprecolonial political and social practices Most of the precolonialpolitical systems developed nonformal and noncontractualrelationships (Wolters 1982) Most Southeast Asian states were inreality ruled by small elite circles underpinned by patronage networksDespite the establishment of formal political institutions and legalframeworks the result was not a bureaucratic system as personalisticand informal patterns of rule persisted (Busse 1999 48) As a resultboth internal and external political arrangements were based on rule bya small number of leaders whose successful management of personalpower relationships with local rulers (for domestic matters) and withthe small number of leaders of other states (for regional matters)determined their countryrsquos future direction Indeed public debatesurrounding policy or criticism is very rare in most Southeast Asian

46

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

polities Given the strong reliance on personal rule the more formal andlegalistic grounds typical of rational bureaucracies did not becomeestablished Southeast Asian political practices

Conflict Management Mechanisms in Southeast Asia

Conflict management (or resolution) mechanisms refer to theprocesses techniques methods and strategies that are applied inorder to manage or resolve a conflict (Michell 1981) A cleardistinction is made in the literature between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andldquomanagementrdquo Conflict

resolution

involves the elimination andtermination of conflict an outcome in which fundamental differencesand grievances have been resolved Conflict

management

involves theelimination of violence or a de-escalation of hostilities in which thecause(s) of conflict have not however been eliminated (Azar andBurton 1986) Conflict management does not necessarily encompassattempts to remove the cause(s) of conflict although it does not denythe possibility of addressing them Conflict resolution is thus a morecomprehensive term and a more ambitious concept as it refers toattempts to address and resolve fundamental sources of dispute

Conflict management mechanisms include any actions orprocedures that may be utilized in the process of resolving andmanaging a dispute Traditionally four major processes are includedin handling conflict conflict avoidance conflict prevention conflictsettlement and conflict resolution (Michell 1981 253-79) Regionalorganizations commonly employ various techniques or strategies inorder to handle disputes such as confidence building deterrencenonintervention isolation intermediation community buildingassurance and intervention The conflict management process couldinclude formal institutionalized methods informal methods (includingtacit cooperation among the parties) or a combination of the twoIn practice different regional organizations employ distinctivemechanisms and methods There are several factors for regionalorganizations to consider when deciding which conflict mechanism toemploy including for instance the nature of the conflict and the desiredoutcome sought by the organization The choice of method (and thescale of its involvement) would also depend on institutional capacityWhile other factors may influence the approach to be taken one of the

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

47

critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization wasestablishedmdashthat is the organizationrsquos goals objectives and aspirations

These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of theconflict reduction mechanisms available Therefore the member-statesrsquocompliance with norms and rules will influence the organizationrsquosperspective At this point the kind of customarily exercisedcommunication and socialization patterns among member-states has acritical impact Similarly the degree of institutionalization of normsand rules will have some importance in practice Given the variousfactors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanismsand considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region it is notsurprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within whichregional organizations should work Each regional organizationdevelops its own unique dispute management tactics thereby creatingtheir own security formula These reflect the nature of conflicts in theregion and the relationships communication and socializationpractices of each member

Managing Disputes The ASEAN Way

Conflict studies provide some insight into certain factors thatinfluence and characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute managementHowever conflict resolution theory by its very name gives priority to

resolving

conflicts It is a question however whether ASEAN as acollective body inevitably attempts to

resolve

conflicts on its agenda Asnoted earlier there is a distinction between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andconflict ldquomanagementrdquo While the former addresses the cause(s) ofconflict the latter is less far-reaching in its approach seeking to reducetensions between parties and if possible to break the impasse Ingeneral ASEANrsquos approach might be more appropriately described asa conflict ldquomanagementrdquo style

The territorial dispute over Sabah between the Philippines andMalaysia provides a good example of ASEANrsquos conflict managementapproach

4

The dispute emerged in the 1960s and remains unresolvedFor this reason many cite the dispute as an example of ASEANrsquosweakness of its failure as a regional organization to resolve disputes

5

In fact ASEAN has not directly taken a lead to

resolve

the dispute Ithas played a role instead however in reducing tension between theparties The principles enshrined within ASEAN such as ldquorestraintrdquo

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 5: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

46

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

polities Given the strong reliance on personal rule the more formal andlegalistic grounds typical of rational bureaucracies did not becomeestablished Southeast Asian political practices

Conflict Management Mechanisms in Southeast Asia

Conflict management (or resolution) mechanisms refer to theprocesses techniques methods and strategies that are applied inorder to manage or resolve a conflict (Michell 1981) A cleardistinction is made in the literature between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andldquomanagementrdquo Conflict

resolution

involves the elimination andtermination of conflict an outcome in which fundamental differencesand grievances have been resolved Conflict

management

involves theelimination of violence or a de-escalation of hostilities in which thecause(s) of conflict have not however been eliminated (Azar andBurton 1986) Conflict management does not necessarily encompassattempts to remove the cause(s) of conflict although it does not denythe possibility of addressing them Conflict resolution is thus a morecomprehensive term and a more ambitious concept as it refers toattempts to address and resolve fundamental sources of dispute

Conflict management mechanisms include any actions orprocedures that may be utilized in the process of resolving andmanaging a dispute Traditionally four major processes are includedin handling conflict conflict avoidance conflict prevention conflictsettlement and conflict resolution (Michell 1981 253-79) Regionalorganizations commonly employ various techniques or strategies inorder to handle disputes such as confidence building deterrencenonintervention isolation intermediation community buildingassurance and intervention The conflict management process couldinclude formal institutionalized methods informal methods (includingtacit cooperation among the parties) or a combination of the twoIn practice different regional organizations employ distinctivemechanisms and methods There are several factors for regionalorganizations to consider when deciding which conflict mechanism toemploy including for instance the nature of the conflict and the desiredoutcome sought by the organization The choice of method (and thescale of its involvement) would also depend on institutional capacityWhile other factors may influence the approach to be taken one of the

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

47

critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization wasestablishedmdashthat is the organizationrsquos goals objectives and aspirations

These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of theconflict reduction mechanisms available Therefore the member-statesrsquocompliance with norms and rules will influence the organizationrsquosperspective At this point the kind of customarily exercisedcommunication and socialization patterns among member-states has acritical impact Similarly the degree of institutionalization of normsand rules will have some importance in practice Given the variousfactors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanismsand considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region it is notsurprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within whichregional organizations should work Each regional organizationdevelops its own unique dispute management tactics thereby creatingtheir own security formula These reflect the nature of conflicts in theregion and the relationships communication and socializationpractices of each member

Managing Disputes The ASEAN Way

Conflict studies provide some insight into certain factors thatinfluence and characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute managementHowever conflict resolution theory by its very name gives priority to

resolving

conflicts It is a question however whether ASEAN as acollective body inevitably attempts to

resolve

conflicts on its agenda Asnoted earlier there is a distinction between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andconflict ldquomanagementrdquo While the former addresses the cause(s) ofconflict the latter is less far-reaching in its approach seeking to reducetensions between parties and if possible to break the impasse Ingeneral ASEANrsquos approach might be more appropriately described asa conflict ldquomanagementrdquo style

The territorial dispute over Sabah between the Philippines andMalaysia provides a good example of ASEANrsquos conflict managementapproach

4

The dispute emerged in the 1960s and remains unresolvedFor this reason many cite the dispute as an example of ASEANrsquosweakness of its failure as a regional organization to resolve disputes

5

In fact ASEAN has not directly taken a lead to

resolve

the dispute Ithas played a role instead however in reducing tension between theparties The principles enshrined within ASEAN such as ldquorestraintrdquo

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 6: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

47

critical factors is the very purpose for which the organization wasestablishedmdashthat is the organizationrsquos goals objectives and aspirations

These technical factors depend largely on the feasibility of theconflict reduction mechanisms available Therefore the member-statesrsquocompliance with norms and rules will influence the organizationrsquosperspective At this point the kind of customarily exercisedcommunication and socialization patterns among member-states has acritical impact Similarly the degree of institutionalization of normsand rules will have some importance in practice Given the variousfactors that are relevant to regional conflict management mechanismsand considering the peculiar nature of disputes in each region it is notsurprising that there are no clear guidelines or frameworks within whichregional organizations should work Each regional organizationdevelops its own unique dispute management tactics thereby creatingtheir own security formula These reflect the nature of conflicts in theregion and the relationships communication and socializationpractices of each member

Managing Disputes The ASEAN Way

Conflict studies provide some insight into certain factors thatinfluence and characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute managementHowever conflict resolution theory by its very name gives priority to

resolving

conflicts It is a question however whether ASEAN as acollective body inevitably attempts to

resolve

conflicts on its agenda Asnoted earlier there is a distinction between conflict ldquoresolutionrdquo andconflict ldquomanagementrdquo While the former addresses the cause(s) ofconflict the latter is less far-reaching in its approach seeking to reducetensions between parties and if possible to break the impasse Ingeneral ASEANrsquos approach might be more appropriately described asa conflict ldquomanagementrdquo style

The territorial dispute over Sabah between the Philippines andMalaysia provides a good example of ASEANrsquos conflict managementapproach

4

The dispute emerged in the 1960s and remains unresolvedFor this reason many cite the dispute as an example of ASEANrsquosweakness of its failure as a regional organization to resolve disputes

5

In fact ASEAN has not directly taken a lead to

resolve

the dispute Ithas played a role instead however in reducing tension between theparties The principles enshrined within ASEAN such as ldquorestraintrdquo

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 7: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

48

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

and ldquorespectrdquo reduced the possibility of all-out military confrontation(Caballero-Anthony 1998 53-4) Although ASEAN has never taken alead in addressing the fundamental issues in dispute between the partiesit contributed to a de-escalation in hostilities As a result open warfarebetween the Philippines and Malaysia was avoided It was Indonesiathat undertook action in the Sabah case Yet even as a third partyIndonesia attempted to bring the Philippines and Malaysia to agree toa cooling-off period rather than attempting to resolve the conflictIndonesiarsquos efforts also reflected a

management

approach to conflictThe ASEAN region has hadmdashand still hasmdasha number of disputes

yet it has experienced only a few instances of open warfare ASEANhas been successful in managing disputes in the region reducing tensionand the potential for violence and maintaining a certain level ofregional order

ASEANrsquos principles and norms clarify why conflict managementis the more appropriate and predictable approach to be taken Themanagement style removes the likelihood of member-states interveningin disputes (and infringing on sovereignty) in order to address criticalissues For third parties a conflict resolution approach requires all-outintervention to identify and address problems between parties Themanagement approach does not necessarily oblige third parties toundertake interventions affecting critical issues Similarly a conflictresolution approach necessitates that the parties face one another anddiscuss the fundamental causes of conflict In contrast the conflictmanagement style allows less formal progress to be made withoutforcing the parties to confront each other This approach suits thepractices of ASEAN and the preferences of its member-states Thus inprinciple conflict management seems better suited to the informal andnonconfrontational approach of ASEAN

The only attempt by ASEAN to provide a formal mechanism tohandle disputes was in its Treaty of Amity and Co-operation (1976)Here the relevant clauses include a commitment to the ldquosettlement ofdifferences or disputes by peaceful meansrdquo and the ldquorenunciation ofthreat or use of forcerdquo It is significant however that even though Article14 of the treaty provides for a ldquoHigh Councilrdquo to be established ithas yet to be constituted (Caballero-Anthony 1998 49) The HighCouncil is empowered by the Treaty ldquoto recommend to the parties indispute appropriate means of settlement such as good office mediation

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 8: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

49

inquiry or conciliationrdquo The treaty thus envisages that ASEAN wouldnot employ typical conflict resolution methods which utilize thirdparties to address critical issues in a more confrontational manner

Evaluations of ASEANrsquos role and capability in handling disputesvary considerably

6

These differing assessments are partially explainedby the distinction between ldquoresolutionrdquo and ldquomanagementrdquo ASEANcan play a vital role in setting forth a common view and approach Itslimitations are highlighted in relation to settling conflicts where theorganization does not take any tangible action There are in otherwords different ideasmdashdifferent valuesmdashconcerning how to deal withconflict The ASEAN perspective toward conflict is reflected in the wayin which ASEAN handles disputesmdashthrough management rather thanconfrontation

Although regional approaches to security may assume a collectiveattempt by regional organizations to prevent manage and resolveconflict the ASEAN way seems to take an alternative form In manyconflict situations it acts as an umbrella body for individual (bilateraltrilateral or quadripartite) attempts among member states to managedisputes rather than acting as a firm collective body that undertakesand imposes collective action The role played by ASEAN duringdisputes is often to act as a forum for consensus building providing anopportunity for members to convey their attitudes toward disputes thathave developed on either a bilateral or multilateral basis

There are considerable differences in the economic and politicalinterests of ASEAN countries (Acharya 1997 323 Ba 1997 636)

7

Theregionrsquos diversity of cultural economic and political interests inhibitsefforts to develop an effective multilateral approach to conflict one thatrequires a strategic consensus As most interstate disputes in the regionhave an economic basis

8

it would be appropriate for bilateralmechanisms and processes to be instituted to address security concernsbetween member-states (Caballero-Anthony 1998 47) As a resultASEAN (as an organizational entity) has not been expected to resolveany conflict (Caballero-Anthony 2002 534)

9

ASEANrsquos role has beenrestricted by bilaterally developed relations between member-statesAlthough ASEAN often expresses its concerns collectively throughformal declarations as in the dispute over the Spratly Islands

10

ithas not taken any action to resolve matters even when the conflictis between member-states within ASEAN In practice individual

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 9: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

50

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

countries have initiated discussions with ASEAN assisting by helpingto develop common positions Individual countries have encouragedfurther moves It was Indonesia for instance that broke the impasse inboth the Sabah and Spratly Islands disputes During the IndonesiandashSingapore Crisis of 1968 Malaysia attempted to reduce the tensionASEANrsquos direct role in conflict management has therefore been limitedEven so as a regional organization ASEANrsquos common principles andnorms have been central in guiding individual statersquos methods andapproaches to the handling of disputes The principles of ASEANinclude consensus consultation informality and nonconfrontationalapproaches and these have assisted in maintaining a degree of stabilityin the region often in circumstances where matters might otherwisehave escalated In this sense although the major principles and normsof ASEAN guide the attitudes and approaches of members towardconflicts the individual actions taken by states during conflicts enhanceexisting regional norms and contribute to the formation andstrengthening of other related principles

These two points emphasize that although discussions of regionalsecurity management often begin with the assumption that regionalorganizations undertake collective conflict

resolution

activity ASEANrsquosapproach cannot be fully understood on that basis ASEANrsquos approachis better explained in certain situations through a different oralternative analytical foundation This is partly because perceptions andattitudes toward conflict seem to be different from those employed inother regions It leads to the question of whether countries in the regionrecognize that their own approach involves particular methods suitablefor conflicts to be approached in a distinctive ldquoASEAN wayrdquo

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo What Matters in a Globalizing World

As noted the ASEAN approach to conflict has been based oncertain principles among them consensus consultation an informaland bilateral style and nonintervention in the domestic affairs of othermembers These norms underpin the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of disputemanagement

Two fundamental areas of action characterize the ldquoASEAN wayrdquoof handling disputes Its principles norms and codes of conduct areidentified first in its interstate behavior and second in its decision-

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 10: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

51

making processes The primary guiding principle for interstate behavioris nonintervention For its decision-making processes there areprinciples of consensus and consultation These values define theldquoASEAN wayrdquo to dispute management

These two approaches reinforce one another Consensus andconsultation styles make it possible to avoid intervening on criticalissues for example the basic causes of conflict Similarly a commitmentto nonintervention requires consultation and consensus A prominentfeature of ASEAN is that it retains these principles on the basis of ashared understanding among the members Countries in the region cancomply with these principles without their being codified or formallypromulgated For ASEAN the ldquoprocessrdquo is important as it is intendedto offer enough time for member-states to reconcile their differences andallow ASEAN to develop a shared view

Regional security arrangements have undergone gradual changes inrecent years providing a changed institutional environment in whichASEANrsquos management of disputes and security threats in SoutheastAsia might interact Security designs in the region have graduallyexpanded to include the wider Asia-Pacific region as in the ARF andin ideas of establishing an East Asian Community These developmentsreflect contextual changes and weaknesses within ASEANrsquos approachparticularly as it relates to the management of disputes and securitythreats

The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo in the Contemporary World

The ASEAN approach to conflict is vulnerable in extra-regionalrelations as a more proactive and resolution-based approach one thatjustifies intervention in order to resolve conflicts has become moredominant in contemporary international relations The ASEANapproach is also vulnerable in cases of intrastate conflict in which thewider international community may see a need for external interventionThis was the case for instance in East Timor as a ldquodomesticrdquo dispute(from the Indonesian perspective) came to be seen as an internationalissue in which Indonesiarsquos views concerning its sovereignty andterritorial integrity were superseded by wider concerns Despite a long-standing awareness of such ldquointernalrdquo disputes regional initiatives andactions to manage or resolve them have been very limited This

partially

explains why the region seems now to require another body (such as the

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 11: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

52

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

ARF) that includes other outside powers It is clear that ASEANrsquosweakness contributed to a search for alternative or additionalapproaches to conflict and security management in the region

Rapid regional changes within recent years confirm that thevulnerability of ASEAN states is increasing with security threatsstemming from terrorism as well as from increasingly violent intrastate(domestic) conflicts There are several prolonged disputes in the regionwith the situation in Myanmar (Burma) receiving at least intermittentinternational concern Current security threats in the region requirecollective approaches consistent with the contemporary internationalsecurity paradigm An increasingly cooperative approach towardsecurity in the region seems appropriate

Yet as ASEAN works closely with other states on securitymanagement in the region its emphasis on its own ldquoASEAN wayrdquo maybe increased

11

It will then face a dilemma between its own approachmdashnot always effectivemdashand realities in the region that urgently requirecomprehensive and practical steps to be taken There is a gap betweenASEANrsquos current approach of maintaining a certain level of regionalorder and the call for real actions This reflects regional and globaldifficulties with ongoing disputes growing instability and the growthof cross-border security threats The challenge for ASEAN is to find apractical way of reconciling the gap preserving its valuesmdashldquotheASEAN wayrdquomdashwhile enabling practical measures to be taken in shortfinding a bridge between wider international principles and regionallydeveloped systems and perspectives

Conclusion

In current Southeast Asian and Asian studies whether in economicpolitical or security spheres the idea of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of anldquoASEAN wayrdquo has gained a place in the analysis of contemporaryevents The idea of the ldquoAsian wayrdquo and of the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo waswidely acknowledged as explaining economic success in the region(Inoguchi and Newman 1997) Likewise various claims regarding theldquoAsianrdquo and the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of security management seem to havegained acceptance among Asian leaders

This study considered the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing with conflictby emphasizing the distinction between ldquoconflict managementrdquo and

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 12: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

53

ldquoconflict resolutionrdquo employed in conflict studies The ldquoASEAN wayrdquowas examined by noting how ASEAN deals with disputes as a regionalorganization ASEANrsquos approach could be best explained as one ofconflict ldquomanagementrdquo consistent with the organizationrsquos principlesand norms including an emphasis on dialogue quiet diplomacyan avoidance of confrontation minimal institutionalisation andnoninterference Although a collective body ASEANrsquos role duringdisputes has been limited to discerning shaping and articulating sharedviews and understandings with initiatives for action often being takenby individual member-states ASEAN enhances an awareness ofinterdependence among its members increasing their willingness toforgo individualism by seeking each otherrsquos advice and concerns(Caballero-Anthony 1998 54) Ultimately the success of theseinitiatives whether by individual states or more collectively under theauspices of ASEAN itself depends upon shared understandings amongmember-states a common outlook in which ASEANrsquos role should notbe underestimated

These conclusions highlight the distinctiveness of ASEANrsquosapproaches to regional conflict The ldquoASEAN wayrdquo of dealing withdisputes within the region is passive and reactive requiring time inwhich consensus can be achieved Some characteristics of the ldquoASEANwayrdquo are in contrast with the general conflict resolution approach andthe more activist approach preferred by some regional organizationsand nongovernment bodies However the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo does notalways conflict with non-ASEAN approaches

Regional security and dispute management systems and strategiesare relevant to changes in regional security architecture in the futureAlthough the establishment of the ARF has increased expectations formore effective and concrete security management in the region thislargely depends upon how tangible the approach established to handledisputes or security threats will be Similarly while support for aregional community such as the East Asian Community has becomefashionable its future will depend on whether the region can makeeffective use of existing Asian and ASEAN approaches to conflictThese approaches informal and low-key do not appear to be wellunderstood or appreciated Although countries in the region emphasizean ldquoAsian wayrdquo the region has not developed its own discoursetheories and frameworks of conflict management and resolution ones

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 13: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

54

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

based upon the foundations and assumptions of an ldquoAsian wayrdquo Thismay be crucial in order to establish practical methods for action It maybe that the ldquoASEAN wayrdquo to security lacks the very terms forexpressing its own approach There is therefore an urgent need for theregion to review its perspective to regional security without beingconstrained by assumptions made in the existing literature Such aneffort will be relevant to formation of a regional security architecturesuitable for any future regional community that encompasses ASEANstates

Notes

1

This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the international workshop on ldquoAsianValues and Regional Community Building in the Globalizing Worldrdquo held in Kobe on November27-28 2004

2

The terms ldquodisputerdquo and ldquoconflictrdquo are used interchangeably in this article Although somedistinguish the use of these terms in this article they are employed synonymously except in specificcases

3

For overall realist perspectives see for example Baylis and Smith (1997) chapter 6

4

For details of the Sabah dispute see Caballero-Anthony (1998 53-5)

5

Regarding this point Caballero-Anthony observes that ldquoin ASEANrsquos history as a corporateinter-state organization it has not resolved any regional conflictrdquo See Caballero-Anthony (2002534)

6

For a positive view of ASEANrsquos role in security issues see Narine (1998) and Snitwongse (1998)for a critical view see Caballero-Anthony (2002) and Leifer (1999)

7

Regarding the regionrsquos diversity Ba (1997 636) states ldquoSoutheast Asia is far moreheterogeneous than homogeneous and boasts a host of different religions cultures ethnicitiesand languagesrdquo

8

Major types of disputes in the region are border water boundary and territorial which may bebroadly defined as economic-related disputes See Azar and Burton (1986)

9

Caballero-Anthony (2002) notes as two examples border disputes between Malaysia andThailand and between Malaysia and Indonesia

10

Such was the case at the Manila Meeting of ASEAN Foreign Ministers held in July 1992

11

In fact some argue that the idea of an ldquoASEAN wayrdquo has been developed by encounteringexternal approaches See Inoguchi and Newman (1997)

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 14: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

Nishikawa The ldquoASEAN Wayrdquo

55

References

Acharya Amitav 1997 ldquoIdeas Identity and Institution-Building From the lsquoASEAN Wayrsquo tolsquoAsia-Pacific Wayrsquordquo

The Pacific Review

10 (3) 319-46

___ 2001

Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia

London Routledge

Ayoob Mohommed 1995

The Third World Security Predicament State Making RegionalConflict and the International System

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Azar E Edward and John W Burton 1986

International Conflict Resolution Theory andPractice

Boulder CO Lynne Rienner

Ba D Alice 1997 ldquoThe ASEAN Regional Forum Maintaining the Regional Idea in SoutheastAsiardquo

International Journal

LII (4) 635-56

Baylis John and Steve Smith eds 1997

The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction toIntentional Relations

Oxford Oxford University Press

Busse Nikolas 1999 ldquoConstructivism and Southeast Asia Securityrdquo

The Pacific Review

12 (1)39-60

Caballero-Anthony Mely 1998 ldquoMechanisms of Dispute Settlementrdquo

Contemporary SoutheastAsia

20 (1) 38-66

___ 2002 ldquoPartnership for Peace in Asia ASEAN the ARF and the United Nationsrdquo

Contemporary Southeast Asia

24 (3) 528-48

Garofano John 2002 ldquoPower Institutions and the ASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

Asian Survey

XLII(3) 502-21

Higgot Richard 1994 ldquoIdeas Identity and Policy Coordination in the Asia Pacificrdquo

The PacificReview

8 (4) 367-79

Inoguchi Takashi and Edward Newman 1997

Asian Valuesrsquo and Democracy in Asia

Proceedingsof a conference held on March 28 1997 at Hamamatsu Shizuoka Japan as part of the FirstShizuoka Asia-Pacific Forum

The Future of the Asia-Pacific Region

Available online at httpwwwunueduunupressasian-valueshtml Accessed on January 3 2007

Jackson H Robert 1993

Quasi-States Sovereignty International Relations and the Third World

New York Cambridge University Press

Kerr Pauline 1994 ldquoThe Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacificrdquo

The Pacific Review

7 (4) 397-409

Leifer Michael 1999 ldquoThe ASEAN Peace Process A Category Mistakerdquo

The Pacific Review

12(1) 25-38

Michell R Christopher 1981

The Structure of International Conflict

New York St MartinrsquosPress

Narine Shaun 1998 ldquoASEAN and the Management of Regional Securityrdquo

Pacific Affairs

71 (2)195-214

Simon W Sheldon 1998 Security Prospects in Southeast Asia Collaborative Efforts and theASEAN Regional Forumrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 195-212

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies

Page 15: The “ASEAN Way” and Asian Regional Security

56

Politics amp Policy

Vol 35 No 1

Snitwongse Kusuma 1998 ldquoThirty Years of ASEAN Achievements through PoliticalCooperationrdquo

The Pacific Review

11 (2) 183-94

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia 24 February 1976 Available onlineat httpwwwaseansecorg Accessed on January 3 2007

Wolters W Oliver 1982

History Culture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives

SingaporeInstitute for Southeast Asian Studies