Challenges to Building an Effective Asia-Pacific Security Architecture Brendan Taylor and William T. Tow Presenter: Nafisa Khaydarova 4012R348-1

Contents Definition Architectural model of Asia-Pacific Main features of Asia- Pacific security architecture Critical factors of region’s security architecture Conclusion Look ahead

Q: What constitutes security architecture? Security architecture concept emerged as the latest concept for describing frameworks of regional security politics and “tells us something of region`s underlying logic ”

Definition of Security Architecture Concept Skeptics focused on security arrangements (implies development by “architects” rather than “master builder”) Rationalist insist that institutions and other groupings must adjudicate their individual members’ interests Constructivist expect that regional security collaboration will be broad and deep network of bargaining and collaborating between key actors The concept of security architecture highlights the idea that policy approaches and mechanisms can be fashioned to modify existing security structures in order to meet evolving security challenges.

Security architecture regional order of building considered from top-down and bottom-up process, or combination of both approaches.  During the Cold War- US umbrella in Asia against Communist expansionism;  Post cold war - ASEAN created ARF to enmesh both China and US in order to build their own security community; Great powers view multilateralism and institutionalism as the impediment to their national security environment in Asia Pacific, but flexible enough to coexist;

Architectural Model of Asia-Pacific It is important to define dynamics of Asia-Pacific security architecture and the factors that shape it in order to understand the model of Asia-Pacific region; Bilateral alliance network of US in Asia-Pacific as the Asia- Pacific region`s stabilizing and balancing instrument (San Francisco system); Rising Beijing similar to dynastic China; Competition for position through coalition building by great powers US, China, Japan, India, Russia and the “hedge” of smaller states; Bilateral and multilateral security relationships complex system and the current interests of coalition is indefinable; The Treaty of Peace (known as the Treaty of San Francisco, was officially signed by 48 nations in 1951, United States) served to officially end World War II. "San Francisco System" - signifies the effects of Japan's relationship with the United States and its role in the international arena.

Security architecture in Asia-Pacific “tells us something of a region`s underlying logic” but also provide insight into “the design which is in the minds of its leading architects” Whether regional “architects” can reach consensus over how power-balancing strategies can be reconciled with institutional approaches to best build order in Asia Pacific.

New architects, new challenges, new competition At least five critical factors bear heavily on the future development of an effective, region wide security architecture: Expanding number of architects; Manage institutions and mechanisms; Combining traditional and nontraditional security issues; The tension between “exclusive” and “inclusive” approaches to regional order building; The principal architects’ competitive and contrasting visions of the future.

1 st factor: Expanding number of architects In the 90s security architecture of Asia-Pacific was elusive: several ill-fated efforts to establish regional grouping in order to create Asia-Pacific architecture and which is provided the basis Asia- Pacific architecture today; Southeast Asia Treaty Organization ; Association of Southeast Asia - ASEAN 1967; successful ASEAN expended into ARF (1994); APT, EAS are more focus on the economy, policy and cultural issues;

During the Cold War hierarchal aspects of San Francisco system and bilateral alliances gave way to a more fluid processes; However, new “minilateral” mechanism such as US-Japan-South Korea Trilateral Coordination, and US-Japan-Australia Trilateral Security Dialogue (TSD) have been emerging security issues After the growth of number of regional institutions, arrangements and structures, now there are more than hundred official regional security institutions as the ARF, SCO, EAS despite of their economical focus, they influence on security mechanism of the region. More ad hoc multilateral initiatives have been undertaken such as Four-Power Talks, later Six-Party talks

2 nd factor: Too many architects? US qualified player; Russia and China established SCO in order to settle border disputes; Australia, Canada and Japan contributors from Cold War period are playing a main role in growth of US in Asia-Pacific security cooperation as well; APEC moving towards leading nontraditional security politics; China has played a leading role in the establishment of a number of institutions in the region: SCO, the Boao Forum for Asia, Network of East Asia Think Tanks; India is the potential candidate to become leading security architect is growing;

3 rd factor: Confluence of traditional and nontraditional security The persistence of traditional security concerns has been complicated by an increasing range of nontraditional security challenges; Interdependence between traditional and nontraditional security agenda recast the dynamics of regional security cooperation. (East Timor in 1999, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003 and inclusion of Taiwan in WHO, Indian Ocean Tsunami relief effort in 2004); Solution of traditional and nontraditional security paradigms depends on how key architects decide what should be “securitized” in the national interests; As long as these trends exist within the region balance between traditional and nontraditional functions Asia Pacific architecture will stay difficult;

4 th factor: the tension between “exclusive” and “inclusive” approaches Competitive community building: exclusivity vs. inclusivity; The proliferations of such groupings does not by itself necessarily constitute progress toward regional security; These entities tend to compete with each other for attention as much as coordinate their purposes and functions. This trend is complicated by their divergent and contradictory missions. Until such Zero-sum characteristics of institutional formation exist prospects for achieving the building remain questionable.

5 th factor: competitive and contrasting visions of the future US is no longer “master builder” China`s “exclusive” approach to regional architecture; China, Malaysia exclusivist vs. Japan, Singapore, Vietnam ; China`s growing economic and strategic weight; US and China should take into account Japan and India; ASEAN`s role uncertain. Its role may diminish as the economic and strategic weight of region`s other leading architects increase; The future design of leading architects is the future of Asia- Pacific architecture particularly, regional institutions and activities being viewed as instruments of competitive influence.

Conclusion: Asia-Pacific security environment is currently experiencing a “critical juncture” in geopolitical development (Calder and Ye, 2004). Plenty of regional security challenges have raised as many problems as potentially addressed. Optimistic scenario which is inclusive “cooperative security” framework and takes time to be agreed and implemented; Pessimistic scenario which is exclusive “competitive geometries” model - an essentially zero-sum approach to institutional formation and operation will become entrenched. Which is more likely to prevail: working with interests of other major powers in the region; “Tipping point” is that one of these models will happen in the future;

Look ahead: Q: What can be done to arrest these worrisome regional trends? First of all, regional security architects must develop and implement new approaches; ASEAN Vision 2020 is good step for it. ASEAN charter may raise influence of ASEAN on great-behavior. Secondly, nontraditional security issues provide genuine opportunities to develop the level of trust required; and nontraditional is easier than addressing traditional security issues, it will develop the level of trust; Finally, state-centric factors need to be resolved if an effective architecture is to be implemented in the Asia Pacific. US-China relationship will be pivotal central; as well as the future of Sino- Japanese relations;

The main questions in the chapter: What constitutes security architecture? How it can be applied? Whether regional “architects” can reach consensus? What can be done to arrest these worrisome regional trends?

ご静聴ありがとうございました。