15-17 June 2004
·
Overview
o
Description: The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies’ fifth Biennial Conference
brought together over 200 individuals, including 34 high-level country
representatives, 23 speakers from 12 countries in the region (nine of whom were
distinguished presenters representing the offices
of Secretary of State and Defense, the State
of Hawaii, the U.S. Senate, and the Indian armed
forces), and 105 Fellows from 35 countries.
o
Objectives:
This conference successfully achieved the original objectives:
§
To allow comparison of perspectives from different sub
regions in the Asia-Pacific.
§
To identify developments in national, regional, and human
security that will shape the security environment of the Asia-Pacific in the
near future.
§
To suggest approaches and strategies for averting emerging
and continuing threats to security faced by Asia-Pacific countries.
§
To facilitate the exchange of views on these issues between
security analysts from throughout the Asia-Pacific region, broadening the
outlook of participants and inculcating a sense of shared destiny.
§
To indicate areas of emphasis for APCSS research, curriculum
development, and conference agendas over the next three years.
o
Outline:
The first day of the conference featured speakers describing the U.S.
perspective on security trends in the region.
The second day was primarily devoted to regional perspectives. The final three panels allowed for summary
and synthesis of the topics discussed during the previous five panels.
·
Main Themes
o
Views on Security Trends: In general, U.S. speakers tended to describe
security trends with relation to developments since Sept.
11, 2001. They pointed out that
instead of solely pursuing weapons systems and
military strength, the United States has begun to see the need to develop
stronger soft power capabilities.
Participants stressed the need to emphasize ideas rather than only
weapons as the basis for victory over terrorism. While economics may play some role in forming a basis for
terrorists to thrive, it is more apparent that the war on terrorism is mainly
an ideological battle.
o
Divergent Priorities: Different sub regions in the Asia-Pacific
place differing emphasis on the security issues that confront them. These issues run the gamut from
state-to-state rivalries through transnational threats, and even the transnational
issues range from terrorism to softer issues such as environmental
security. Because the countries order
their priorities differently not only from each other, but also from the United
States, U.S. policymakers must use sub regional approaches.
o
Prospects for Cooperation: While these divergent priorities can be seen
as a challenge to security cooperation, they also provide the opportunity for
bargaining that allows the countries involved to play on each other’s
strengths. Such cooperation must span
the full range of both war fighting and non-war fighting means of providing
security.
·
Global War On Terrorism
o
Extremism:
Some speakers listed varied causes of terrorism, to include poverty and
lack of education, while others pointed out that differing ideology and
psychological causes were possible factors.
The United States must cooperate with moderate elements within the
Islamic community to contain extremist elements. Some possible methods suggested for accomplishing this were
ensuring the proper use of Islamic terms, awarding economic aid, implementing
educational programs, and increasing confidence-building measures including
conferences such as this one.
o
Maritime Security (RMSI/PSI): Piracy and smuggling of weapons, drugs, and
humans were identified as serious security threats in the region because they
supply funding for terrorist networks, although a caution was raised about
linking all transnational crimes to terrorism.
Intelligence sharing was broadly supported as a cooperative measure. Interdiction on the high seas or territorial
waters raised the question of sovereignty, but some speakers argued this should
not be the case.
o
Iraq:
One of the major challenges alluded to throughout the conference is the
impact of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. For example,
some participants questioned the legitimacy of U. S. critiques of human rights
in Asian nations following the disclosures of prisoner abuse at Abu
Ghraib. It might also be more difficult
for some Asian leaders to carry out security cooperation with the United States
due to the lack of support for IRAQI FREEDOM among the populaces of Asian
nations. However, the recent U.N. Security Council
resolution has alleviated some of the concerns regarding perceived U.S.
unilateralism.
·
Regional Hotspots
o
Kashmir:
Speakers from India and Pakistan were guardedly optimistic about the
current dialogue. The physical presence of the United States and the
fact that both sides have nuclear weapons have worked in concert to help
stabilize the situation without future solution in sight.
o
Korea:
Speakers expressed mixed views about the outcome of the Six Party
Talks. Things will most likely remain
in a stalemate until the elections are over.
o
China-Taiwan: While panelists from NE Asia did not explicitly raise this issue
as an urgent crisis, many speakers tacitly acknowledged that China-Taiwan
continues to be an important security issue.
·
Expectations About China: The rise of China was described as a central
consideration in the foreign policy of countries in the Asia-Pacific. Some speakers articulated the viewpoint that
China’s economic growth is the source of its growing confidence in regional
multilateral security frameworks.
China’s neighbors see growing economic cooperation with China as
complementing rather than contradicting existing security cooperation with the
United States. U.S.-China relations are
currently viewed as having improved over the past three years. Asian countries find this advantageous in
that they enjoy more leeway in their conduct of security cooperation in the
region. Some expressed concern that
China’s economy was overheating, and that a downturn would have negative
ramifications for the region’s economies.
·
Security Architectures: One of the foremost themes that emerged
during the discussion of the global war on terrorism was what type of security
architecture would be most appropriate to meet regional security challenges.
o
A major question was what type of approach the United States
should take in order to be successful in its efforts against terrorism. While the United States has been pursuing a
combination of ad hoc multilateralism and bilateral approaches, several
speakers suggested a more institutionalized multilateralism through such
mechanisms as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional
Forum (ARF) might be a better option.
On the other hand, others questioned whether multilateral institutions
are capable of reaching timely and effective solutions.
o
In NE Asia the Six-Party Process covering North Korean
nuclear development was suggested as one possible example that could grow into
a more permanent sub regional feature and might outlive the present
crisis. Many speakers expressed their
skepticism about ASEAN’s ability to solve intraregional crises such as Burma. On this note, it was also suggested that
institutions such as ARF offer an opportunity for continued dialogue with
countries under scrutiny by the international community.
o
The efficacy of the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) continues to depend on the level of tension between India
and Pakistan.
·
U.S. Leadership in
the Asia-Pacific: American
speakers emphasized that changes in the forward deployment posture of the U.S. military
are primarily based on technological and tactical considerations. However, U.S. allies in Asia expressed some
concerns about the politico-strategic ramifications of such changes. Additionally, to resolve the problems
associated with these different perceptions, it was suggested that the United
States must improve its prior consultation
with partners and allies in the region when launching new initiatives. However, some U.S. participants pointed out
that it is also the allies’ responsibility to ensure communication with their
domestic public.
·
Regional Differences in
Security Focus: During the
regional panels, it became apparent that speakers from different regions, and
even countries within regions, ordered security threats differently. How these countries define security makes a
huge difference in their foreign and domestic policy decisions. While some NE Asian participants emphasized
internal security considerations, most speakers from the region primarily
emphasized external security issues such as North Korea and the Taiwan
Strait. Meanwhile, SE Asian and S.
Asian panelists tended to demonstrate a much greater concern for internal
stability and their countries’ abilities to deal with threats to that stability. In this context, separatist movements,
ethnic strife, and issues related to human security become vital
considerations. The militaries in these
sub regions often continue to pursue the dual roles of providing both internal
and external security, sometimes to the detriment of their own resources and
capabilities.
·
Natural Resource Competition: Asia’s exploding energy demand has given
rise to a whole new level of concern over energy security. Several speakers pointed out that the
competition over possible oil reserves in the South China Sea might
intensify. In NE Asia oil pipelines
from the Russian Far East are of critical importance for all other countries of
the region. With regard to South and SE
Asia, participants expressed concern about water resource sharing between
upstream and downstream states. Normal
seasonal fluctuations in water level are exacerbated by the decisions of
upstream countries. In several countries, the availability of potable water is
a concern.
·
Summary of Challenges and Opportunities
o
The Asia-Pacific region continues to be an area where the
possibility of major power conflicts remains a serious concern for U.S.
security planners.
o
At the same time, emerging non-traditional and transnational
security threats are often intertwined with traditional state-to-state
rivalries, thereby presenting even greater challenges to security cooperation
in the Asia-Pacific region.
o
Countries in the region order their security priorities
differently. Soft power initiatives
encompassing the full range of non-war fighting means, including many elements
of the Theater Security Cooperation program of USPACOM, are helpful in building
mutual understanding of these differing security priorities and finding common
ground among the security partners.
Regional centers are instrumental in this process.
o
Security goes beyond the military, and must be viewed
comprehensively. Economic development
and security must be developed in concert instead of one relying on the
other. Cultural and educational
exchanges are examples of opportunities for developing mutual understanding,
thus creating a base for greater regional cooperation.
o
With opportunities come responsibilities. Where common security interests exist
between the United States and Asia-Pacific states, both must clearly communicate
their own security needs to their partners as well as their domestic publics in
a timely and effective manner.
o
Where security interests diverge among the Asia-Pacific
states, more communication, rather than less, should be encouraged.