Imagine a situation in which Chinese merchant fleet, its navy and Chinese Coast Guard present in some form, from the coast of Africa, all the way around to the Korean Peninsula, covering vast oceans, thus protecting Chinese economic interests and the maritime system in which those interests operate. Likewise, imagine India, South Korea, and Japan all adding submarines and other warships to patrol this Afro-Indo-Pacific region. Finally, imagine the United States, a hegemon, still maintaining the world’s largest navy and coast guard, but with a smaller difference between it and other world class navies, also adding its fleet in this calculus. This is the situation we are heading towards particularly in the South East Asia. If we add an aggressive posture in this picture by any of these states, the situation becomes fully rife for a full blown conflict. In the wake of such a scenario, the concept of collective security can obviously give a sigh of relief in any tense environment. The presence of a dynamic regional form like ASEAN, can provide an opportunity to materialize this dream of collective security for the whole region. Let us explore this idea of collective security under the umbrella of ASEAN, and also explore the idea in the context of success model of NATO for European Collective security regime.
ASEAN: An Overview
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises of ten member states with diverse backgrounds and with a population of 662 million. From its origin in 1967 to its present economic prominence with a collective GDP of more than $3.2 trillion, ASEAN has proved itself as a successful model of regional cooperation. ASEAN has grown into a substantial economic and political force, significantly influencing regional geopolitics. The organization’s economic significance, underscored by initiatives like the ASEAN Economic Community, and its diplomatic achievements, provide a foundation for brainstorming the idea of a security or defense pact among its member states. As the region faces new challenges and opportunities, addressing diverse security priorities, historical complexities, and external pressures will be crucial for the path forward for this organization.
NATO’s Context in ASEAN’s Security Perspective
Sir Winston Churchill, believed that the World War I in Europe was caused in large part by the divided state of Europe. He discussed the concept of a collective security alliance in the 1930s, when he published an article, “The United States of Europe†particularly in the wake of Germany’s growing militarization and expansionist ambitions. In a 1936 speech, Churchill spoke of the need for “A Grand Alliance” of democratic nations to counter the threats posed by Nazi Germany. In 1946, Churchill carried this idea to Zurich through his speech, the first step in his plan called for a Council of Europe, which would not interfere with national sovereignty of nations; but, act as a forum to help kick start the process of deepening ties between the European nations.
The established order of NATO in 1949, marked a good sized moment in history, representing the USA’ first engagement in a peacetime navy alliance beyond the Western Hemisphere. Following the devastation of World War II, European nations, grappling with monetary and security issues, sought assistance from the United States to rebuild their economies and guard towards capacity threats, mainly from a resurgent Germany or the Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan, initiated with the aid of Secretary of State George Marshall, played a pivotal role in fostering European financial integration and strengthening shared pursuits between the USA and Europe. This historical backdrop holds relevance as ASEAN contemplates a prospective collective security pact, drawing parallels between the economic collaboration and security assurances needed in Southeast Asia.
In the face of evolving geopolitical landscapes, NATO’s response to Russia’s aggression, particularly in Ukraine, underscores the alliance’s renewed sense of purpose. The conflict prompted increased collaboration with Ukraine, with NATO member countries providing substantial military support. Simultaneously, Finland and Sweden sought NATO membership, highlighting the alliance’s expanding influence. For ASEAN, observing NATO’s response to current challenges provides valuable insights into navigating regional complexities and maintaining a commitment to collective defense in the face of external threats.
Exploring possibilities of an ASEAN Defense Pact on the footsteps of NATO
In the period between 1948 and 1955, responding to escalating security concerns, Western European international locations signed the Brussels Treaty in 1948, setting the level for a collective protection approach. Concurrently, the Truman Administration, with guide from the Republican Congress, explored the concept of a European-American alliance. The ensuing North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 blanketed the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the UK. The outbreak of the Korean War multiplied NATO’s integration, leading to the admission of Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. These historical negotiations and expansions provide insights for ASEAN as it considers a collective security pact, reflecting on the importance of clear terms and addressing constitutional concerns.
NATO’s enduring legacy is rooted in its collective defense arrangement, emphasizing that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all, positioning Western Europe under the American “nuclear umbrella.” The doctrine of “massive retaliation” emerged, signifying a commitment to respond with large-scale nuclear attacks in the event of aggression. Beyond the Cold War, NATO has persisted, expanding its membership to include former Soviet states. This enduring alliance, built on principles of collective security and deterrence, stands as the world’s largest peacetime military coalition, illustrating its significance in shaping global geopolitics. ASEAN, contemplating a collective security pact, can draw lessons from NATO’s legacy in fostering unity and deterrence against external threats.
A Review of Past Efforts within ASEAN and Lessons from evolving history of the Region
In South East Asian region, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) emerged in 1954 through collaboration among the United States, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan. Despite its title, SEATO primarily included nations outside Southeast Asia, with only the Philippines and Thailand as regional members. Established during the Cold War to counteract the spread of communism, SEATO faced varied responses from Southeast Asian nations, with the Philippines and Thailand joining due to concerns over domestic communist threats. However, linguistic and cultural differences among member states, coupled with SEATO’s limited collective action capabilities, contributed to its dissolution in 1977.
Another notable initiative was the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA) which came into being in 1971 as a security arrangement involving Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Malaysia and Singapore. It was intended to deter external aggression. Although, the FPDA is a significant security arrangement in Southeast Asia, as it has helped to maintain regional stability and has been used to conduct joint military exercises and trainings.
Likewise, The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), signed in 1976 by the founding members of ASEAN, is a legally binding code for inter-state relations in the region and beyond. It is based on the principles of non-interference, peaceful settlement of disputes, and renunciation of the threat or use of force. The TAC has been a cornerstone of ASEAN’s peace and security architecture for over 40 years. It has helped to promote regional stability and cooperation, and it has been used to resolve a number of disputes between ASEAN member states. In 1987, the TAC was amended to allow for accession by states outside Southeast Asia. As of 2023, there are 54 High Contracting Parties to the TAC, including all 10 ASEAN member states, China, Japan, Russia, India, the United States, and the European Union.
Similarly, in 1995, ASEAN leaders took a broader approach by adopting the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), a security dialogue that extended beyond ASEAN member states to include influential nations like China, Japan, and the United States. While the ARF successfully facilitated regional dialogue and cooperation, it encountered difficulties in developing a cohesive security policy due to diverse interests among participating nations.
A more recent effort was the adoption of the ASEAN Security Community (ASC) Blueprint in 2010, outlining a vision for a secure and prosperous Southeast Asia. The ASC Blueprint envisioned the development of a shared security identity, strengthened defense capabilities, and enhanced regional cooperation on security matters. However, progress toward implementing the blueprint has been slow, reflecting the complexities of aligning diverse national interests of nations.
Current Regional Security Landscape
Admiral Michael Mullen, stated in 2006, “The old maritime strategy focused on sea control, the new one must recognize that the economic tide of all the nations rises not when the seas are controlled by one nation, but rather made safe and free for all.†Southeast Asian nations are actively enhancing defense partnerships amid ongoing military modernization plans, navigating a delicate balance in the increasingly polarized regional landscape dominated by the strategic rivalry between China and the United States. As a critical theater in the growing competition between these major powers, Southeast Asia, comprising the ten ASEAN member states (soon to be eleven with Timor-Leste’s admission), is reluctant to align decisively with either side. Despite close monetary ties with Beijing, nations like Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam are concurrently cultivating stronger defense family members with the U.S. And its allies. This local navy modernization, totaling $60.Nine billion from 2013 to 2022, is regularly regarded as a way of balancing against China, yet no us of a has fundamentally reshaped its military to discourage a conflict with China. The Southeast Asian states, regularly in search of a middle ground among the U.S. And China, will probably voice issues about geopolitical competition, aiming for speak and collaboration on shared demanding situations such as monetary integration, climate change, and the strength transition.
Discussing Obstacles and Roadblocks in Creation of a Security Pact
In the context of discussing boundaries and roadblocks within the creation of a safety or defense p.C. For ASEAN, the current joint navy drills, named the ASEAN Solidarity Exercise (ASEX 23), marks a big but careful step toward navy cooperation within the local grouping. The workout, centered on humanitarian comfort efforts, came about in opposition to the backdrop of escalating tensions inside the South China Sea. Despite the nice development, demanding situations lie in the various army abilties and political orientations of ASEAN member states. The geopolitical weather, characterised via the competition among the USA and China, similarly complicates efforts to form a unified protection percent. The exercises were framed by Indonesia as a demonstration of ASEAN centrality, highlighting concerns about being forced to choose sides amid great power competition. Additionally, the evolving nature of alliances, such as AUKUS and the Quad, poses challenges to ASEAN’s relevance and unity. The region’s vulnerability to natural disasters and climate change underscores the importance of cooperation, but geopolitical dynamics present hurdles in establishing a cohesive security framework. The varying levels of participation in the drills and differences in military strategies among member states also raise questions about the potential operational effectiveness of an ASEAN-wide security pact. Despite these obstacles, the joint exercises serve as a foundation for future collaboration, emphasizing the need for a gradual and pragmatic approach in navigating security challenges within the ASEAN region.
Potential Benefits of a NATO Styled ASEAN Security Arrangement
Â
-
Collective Defense and Regional Stability
A NATO-styled ASEAN Security Pact holds the promise of ensuring collective defense against external threats, fostering a sense of security and stability within the region, such a pact could serve as a bulwark against potential aggressors, providing member states with the assurance of mutual support.
-
Enhanced Military Cooperation and Deterrence
An ASEAN Security Pact would enhance military cooperation, facilitate joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and coordinated responses to any security crises. Similar to NATO’s historical role in deterrence during the Cold War, the pact could act as a deterrent against potential adversaries.
-
Addressing Contemporary Security Challenges
A security pact would empower ASEAN to collectively address security challenges by providing a framework for intelligence-sharing and collaborative efforts, the pact could enhance the region’s ability to counter emerging security risks.
-
Balancing External Influences and Regional Autonomy
Amid the ongoing strategic rivalry between major powers, particularly the United States and China, an ASEAN Security Pact becomes crucial for maintaining a balanced approach and preserving regional autonomy.
End Note
In reflection, ASEAN’s journey from its historical origins to its current status represents a nuanced evolution in response to shifting global dynamics. Insights from NATO’s context and lessons from ASEAN’s past initiatives, coupled with an understanding of the region’s current security landscape, highlight the balance that Southeast Asian nations maintain despite major power rivalry. While obstacles persist, the potential benefits of a NATO-styled ASEAN Security Pact, encompassing collective defense, enhanced military cooperation, addressing modern security challenges, and preserving regional autonomy, offers a compelling vision to foster a resilient security architecture in the wake of upcoming challenges.
valdimir simcik