Introduction
This paper is a brief discussion on the issues of Politics and Security in South East Asia. South East Asia refers to a group of countries Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, Christmas Island, and Singapore. Excluding East Timor, all of the countries are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which is a geographical, political and economic organization and its goals comprise quickening economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, protection of provincial peace and steadiness, and opportunities for associate countries to debate differences peacefully. ASEAN provides a framework for the integration of commerce, and regional responses to international concerns. Presently most countries in South East Asia enjoy national autonomy. Hence, South East Asia has the most diversified of political scenarios in the world. The policies of risk and security of individuals and the state is yet at a preliminary state. Democratic formation of government and the recognition of human rights are still taking root.
This discussion, and its conclusions, revolves on the basic theories formulated in the four works: “Beyond securitization: explaining the scope of security policy in Southeast Asia” by Lee Jones, “Human Security in Southeast Asia: Viable Solution or Empty Slogan?” by Yukiko Nishikawa, “Asia Pacific security and legacies and futures” by Anthony Burke and Matt Macdonald, and “Security and South East Asia” by Collins. All of the above works show a different approach at how Politics and its consequences, that security of the people and the state has to face.
“A Nation will feel secure when its foundation, the individual, has felts so”
-Anonymous
South East Asia is a region where social and political security is yet to be implemented completely, and hence, there are lot complications that need to be addressed politically before security as a right can be completely instated onto individuals. South East Asia has undergone tremendous changes as well as political, social and natural catastrophes in the past decade, which has brought the issue of politics and its involvement in security of the state and individual at the fore front time and again.
As scrutiny falls over the work by Collins (2003), a study basically set in the time when Suharto’s regime collapse and financial crisis that hit the region after it. The author analytically approaches from a global political perspective quoting the likes of United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (Collins, 2003). The threats are categorized as internal and external in nature throughout the text, which is a broad class of categorization, external being the ones from neighboring countries in the form incursions and attacks, foreign policies that pose a direct threat to the sovereign working of the government system and so on and so forth. Internal threats are defined as political unrest within the nation, the threat caused due to excessive immigrations, internal dysfunctional-ties due to faults of individuals, which may amount to national loses. Disputes like the South China Sea dispute and the problem of terrorism are addressed. The article also discusses the rich cultural, religious and historical vectors and causes that affect the nations that come under the broad term that is South East Asia. There is however a less clear cut addressing as to what should be the solution to such problems. The author takes on a generalized and historical approach at the politics involved and the causative factors of threats that are created due to political reasons. Security is very much an issue when the stability of a government is to be considered. Without a proper to formulate and carry out the implementation of policies it is very difficult for a nation to define the security of itself. The un-stability of one nation affects another and leads to what is called a dominos effect.
Another point of view of what security means and comes directly from Burke and Macdonald (2007). The perspective as we shift from a timeline of political and financial instability to a time when the South Asian countries had to face natural calamity in the form of a giant wave, the tsunami, that hit Sumatra, Thailand, India, Bangladesh and Somalia (Burke and Macdonald, 2007) and how ASEAN proved ineffective during the time of its highest requirement. The threat that they discuss here is directed to the threat of life for the individuals, how natural disasters impact security to them and what all measures must be taken practically and, more importantly, politically to prepare as well as cope, when natural destruction comes calling on the door of these countries. This article, like the previous one, emphasizes on the same theory that the notion of ‘traditional’ or realist approach to security, where the State is above the individual is a problematic perspective to find the solution of national security. The author defines critical security to be the one that must be available to an individual before it is available to the state. It is a very intriguing proposition as in politics, the generalization is to take the masses as a whole and to provide and distribute the policies in the very same manner. It may seem demographically impossible, considering the high population density of South East Asia, but seems a feasible approach when a broader sense of security is brought into the line of sight. However, natural forces are elements that can at best be forewarned about and hence to ensure the security of a nation from such a threat a sound political system that may be able to act on time becomes a necessity is inferred from the text.
Yukiko Nishikawa (2009) writes in his security dialogue about the social dilemmas that South East Asia faces, as the gap between governments and other groups within South Asian countries considered as threats (Nishikawa, 2009). The article refers to a time when the government system has attained a measure of control that it exercises on the people in the South East Asian states. The concept contributes to formation of a basic understanding of the complicated root reasons of forcefulness and demonstrates connections between human insecurity and conflict. The article settles that the usefulness of human security in the future lies in efforts to manage internal clashes in Southeast Asia, and on whether the analysis of specific situations integrates a systematic understanding of the exclusive relationships between government and other groups, as established in the ‘ASEAN Way’(Nishikawa, 2009), inside the zones in query. Governments need to understand the fact that politics does not work without the very moat of its power, which is its people. Dissatisfaction only leads to internal hemorrhage of a system which is no less than huge damage on its own. It stands clear again that the people of nation are its biggest asset, politically too, and must be provided with political, socio-economic, secular and individualistic security.
There are various critique schools that dominates theoretical framework used to explore the widening of states (Jones, 2011). Southeast Asia is often said to be host to a forbidding array of new security challenges, particularly, the region is said to be hogged by ‘ever changing threats such as natural disasters, exodus, climate change, environmental dilapidation, widespread diseases, terrorism, international crime, and drug smuggling and trafficking. The article by Jones (2011) is form of generalization that combines all the ideologies of all the scripts mentioned above. It is needed a well needed perspective to understand the complete picture before any analysis or policy making should be done regarding security issues of a state or its people.
Secularization and religious freedom is also an approach, whih has been of great importance to the people of South East Asia, as the diversity of religion in this region is huge, with ancient Hinduism through Islam to modern day Buddhism. Not understanding the gravity of religious faiths can again surmount to an internal threat, one which has always been a threat for any form of governance or politics. All the texts that have been so far referred above point out to secularization as important and ignoring the religious sentiments of the masses is a harbinger of unrest
Politics is the art of appeasing the masses, as they say, to find the means to govern. It must be done both selfishly and selflessly at the same time to bring out the best possible results in an altruistic manner. For politics, security is an important issue to hold governance of a nation. The masses respond to who so ever will make them feel safe and sound in their homes. Approaches may change but the requirement remain the same, you cannot rule until and unless you have the support of the ones being ruled, and history is proof of fall of regimes that ignored the fact. Security to an individual is safety of their occupation, safety of their family, safety of their religious faith, safety of belongings and safety of their lives. South East Asian countries have suffered a lot in the past decade and security of individuals in these countries has been questioned time and again. Though there has been progress, much needs to be done in harmony and academic as well as experienced research, and application of its findings must be done rapidly, but keeping in mind all the aspects of security that an individual must possess in order to feel safe in his or her country. If a state is able to achieve this feet, and is able to harmonize it with other states surrounding it, as is the case of all the nations in South East Asia, another impending calamity may be averted and development shall prevail in highly coordinated environment where trade, living and growth shall co-exist.
Conclusion
References
Lee Jones (2011), ‘Beyond securitization: explaining the scope of security policy in Southeast Asia’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific Volume 11 (2011) 403–432 doi:10.1093/irap/lcr002
Yukiko Nishikawa (2009), ‘Human Security in Southeast Asia: Viable Solution or Empty
Slogan?’, Security Dialogue 2009 40: 213
Anthony Burke and Matt Macdonald (2007), ‘Asia Pacific security legacies and futures’.
Collins (2003), ‘Security and South East Asia’, Commonwealth of Australia.
