Security studies approaches have evolved over time in the international arena. In the globe currently, there are major driving forces that influence the advancement of global security studies. The reasons cited for this change include deep power politics, technological innovation and crucial events in the international security arena. Moreover, other reasons include institutionalization, local dynamics of intellectual deliberations. It is of immense significance to discover which forces are of massive significance that makes the decision in denoting a security incident. (Mukherjee, 2013). Core factors like realism and liberalism also feature prominently in the discourse of regionalization of security matters in the ASEAN and the problems facing it.
In the end, this kind of focus is aimed at safeguarding the security situation in the region and the world at large. Effective regionalization has been a key dream and concern of the Southeast Asian nations for the longest time possible. However, one fundamental cog in the wheel of regionalization has been an aspect of security. Regionalization is giving credence to the difficulty posed by the ever changing nature security challenges in the region. The uniformed forces in this region are involved in intensive structuring and adoption of new strong and innovative strategies to combat any difficulty. One of the key aspects greatly considered is the massive investment in training of the forces involved in new strategies. If the massive training is not continuously done, then there exists a potential danger looming ahead (Antony, 2003).
The nature of current and future security challenges are strategically linked to the regional cooperation among the states. Consequently, any future policy and strategy must take into consideration the diverse changing undercurrents in the Southeast Asia. They have undoubtedly faced seismic alterations occasioned by the economic meltdown that was in itself necessitated by the fiscal crisis in 1997. Because of this financial catastrophe, people in this region saw untold suffering, from lack of sufficient healthcare to a breakdown of the social structure. Eventually, the economies of these countries recovered but with another serious problem. There was a beginning of movements of separatist and fundamentalist and undemocratic governments. The people seemed to have laid the blame on the governments, and so they could no longer trust the government again with their economic security (Roberts, 2010).
As these movements grew, the governments lacked the financial muscle to mitigate this deadly trend. Many of the radical movements, if not all, have since metamorphosized into organized terror groups. There are many existing disputes that revolve around the borders; a factor that has complicated matters of security in the Southeast Asia even further. Also of much complexity are the perennial international subjects such as drug and illegal commerce. Intra-state ethnic and religious conflicts and tension are not to be left unmentioned. In view of these issues, a lot of study approaches need to be done in order to mitigate the seemingly uncertain security sphere of the Southeast Asian region (Caballero-Antony, 2010).
When the post-crisis economic development is closely studied, it must be observed that it forms part of the most significant factor in realizing a secure region. In fact, it will assume the most critical factor of security not just in the foreseeable future, but also in the present. The future significance of the ASEAN security guarantee is tied to the hip with its economic prosperity and development. Many recent studies have continued to emphasize that development and growth in the economy, politics and security are closely interdependent. In 1997, it was evident that strategies that were deployed to assist the weaker economies rise by linking them to the strong ones had the potentiality of making the entire economic platform fragile and unstable. It would have plunged the region into even much fiscal quagmire (Hettne, 2006).
The economic fragility is even catalyzed by the steep rise of China as a world economic power. China today attracts massive foreign direct investment, far more than the whole Southeast Asia. As a result of this, there exists urgent and critical need in ensuring the economic stability of the entire region. Ethnic tensions are another problem that undermines the regionalization of the Southeast Asia about its security stability. The region under study has many different ethnic inclinations among its population. The region has a total population of 500 million people. There also are diverse dialects, religious persuasions, and cultures. Ethnic conflicts are at a constant high. People are intolerant and don’t seem to exist harmoniously (Berkofsky, 2003). A lot of outreaches are critically needed to teach these people that they are equal and that they do not need to hate one another.
What is at risk is that this kind of differences put the democratic societies within this region at a serious risk of anarchy and lawlessness. Some of this tension can however be traced back to the pre-colonial periods. Nonetheless, the precarious state of tension that prevails in the present day was ignited by the economic and financial meltdown of 1997. The governments at that time lacked the monetary wherewithal to control the situation. There were massive unemployment and the depreciation of the region’s moneys. By way of example, in Indonesia, there were acute incitement that led to ethnic tensions. It happened in the region of Kalimantan, and it involved the traditional Dayaks and Madrusse occasioned by the financial quagmire. If it had continued for an extended period, it could have birthed a need for substitute philosophies like religious fundamentalism. A meltdown of existing regimes could also have been a direct impact of the ethnic flare-ups.
Religious extremism is also another problem that has impacted negatively to the development of a secure regionalization state of the region (Emmers, 2007). Southeast Asia has been at the center of endless renewal of religious extremism. Many countries have been left victims to this social malady with most leaders left with the management dilemma occasioned by chronic distrust from certain quarters. In effect, this can potentially lead to the delineation of societies that have embraced democratic principles along tribal and spiritual lines. Religious extremism together with ethnic strains has strengthened the push by radical groups in realizing their agenda. These two factors give lots of political base for the divergent groups an opportunity to want to topple sitting governments. In the process, lives are lost; economic development is disrupted, and the harmonious social structure is surely broken. All these are reasons enough for insecurity, even in cross borders, to continue being a challenge.
For instance, there was the bombing of Marriot Hotel in Jakarta in Indonesia. The bombing was carried out by religious extremists who even go as far as employing terror tactics and violence. Such crude methods are used in a bid to further their selfish political agenda and also announce their might and attract international attention (Boyd, 2010).It is sufficient to say that extreme religious sects have existed since the late 1970’s. However, their massive strength and growth have been as a result of resourceful links to global networks, that some bear the character of terrorists. It is because of this twist that has made the world realize the true reality and magnitude of extremism. The Islamic network of extremists acts with a broad goal in mind. Their aim is normally to jumpstart similar crude methods of operation from the radical groups that are non-Islamic in nature.
Resolutions of these extreme religious factions have been hindered by internal problems that are in existence in the individual states. The radical groups have cross-border system operation that many a times make it so hard for a country’s leadership to solely deal with them (Parnini, 2005). It thus calls for a unified strategy and a collective approach that can only be realized by regionalization of the security agenda. In underpinning this, there was an ASEAN summit that was recently held in Bali. In this summit, it was unanimously agreed by the attending nations that the collective will would be used in tackling this serious social malady. Members agreed that they would take multilateral steps in combating ethnoreligious extremism and terrorism as a whole. There is a catch though that impedes this collective initiative. The ASEAN operates on the paradigm of non-interference.
Member states are thus weary of acting yet the failure to abide by this resolution could also negatively impact on the nation’s standing in the international realm (Mak, 1995). Ancient security problems are another problem that faces the regionalization of security in the Southeast Asia. There are totally new security problems in the region. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that these new security challenges have apparently not replaced the old ones. It essentially means that the situation is more complex as dealing with the security problems requires the impartial understanding of the regions entire history. It also points to the fact that solving the new problems would only do less in eradicating the poor security level of the ASEAN countries. To be specific, there are critical flashpoints in the Southeast Asia.
One of the unresolved matters is about the Spratly Islands. China has in the past been so aggressive when it comes to claiming the ownership of this island. On the public surface, china recently penned a non-aggression agreement on this matter. However, what cannot be downplayed is the fact that all the countries involved have sufficiently been preparing to defend its rightful ownership of the island (Wang, 2007). Therefore, every nation in this contest has gone to great depths in quickly arming itself specifically for this purpose. In effect, there is clear evidence that supports this premise. Massive development of the air and sea potentials of these countries point to that.
Furthermore, an initiative to try and create independence for these troubled islands could lead to a potential regional war. Such was evident when such a move was occasioned on China about Mischief Reefs in 1995. Another concern of great magnitude involves the polarity of the Northeast Asian region. Any war or conflict that happens in North Korea and along the Taiwan Straits cans inevitably spill over into the Southeast Asia. If Japan becomes involved too, the Southeast Asia can have negative ramifications on its economy. Such an eventuality would take the region into an economic crisis of 1997 that birthed the current challenges in the first place. Important sea lines of communication that is what sustains the economic stability of Southeast Asia could be cut. When this occurrence is combined with the rise of ethnic strains and religious extremism, these factors could pose almost impossible security challenges for the region (Hwang, 2006).
These countries, China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Burma, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore, Indonesia and Timor face some issues in one way or the other. Some matters affect the state of concrete regionalization in issues of security. The issues are namely; active terrorism, trans-national issues, separatism, ethnic conflicts, and interstate disputes. In continuing to look at this issue, it is necessary to take a shot of prediction of what the future looks like for this region in terms of security difficulties. The year 2020 will certainly be a momentous year for the region. It is attributed to the possible achievement of Vision 2020 as dreamt by the ASEAN. One critical aspect will be the probable creation of the tariff-free Southeast Asian commercial market.
The free trade area points to economic growth of the region and it will be regionalized. Economic interdependence will be a major aspect of this change (Zhang, 2005). It is almost undoubted that economic interdependence could also mean political and security interdependence among the nations that make up Southeast Asia. There will be a tremendous rise of integrated security pressures. The security environment will be more compounded that it has ever been. One particular security fear will possibly combine with another and hence create a complex network of challenges. One clear example is the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic militant faction. In order to finance its terrorist deeds, the group resorts to committing banditry and kidnappings. The integration of the security challenges can be approached in three different concepts.
First, safety dares are continuing to assume a transnational nature. These dares will not be constricted to geographical boundaries of countries. On the second point, safety threats are increasingly beginning to possess peripheral associations with other worldwide outfits with identical political objectives. A clear example is the Jemaah Islamiyah. Lastly, extremist groups are progressively employing violent methodology in advancing their agenda (Boyd, 2010).In the future, deterioration of inter-state armed conflicts in the Southeast Asia is likely. The decline is attributed to the hope the world has on the ASEAN to be reliable conflict resolution podium. The countries will also not risk their financial growth except when the matter at hand risks the independence of a particular country.
The countries in this region, from experience, have realized that equipped war bears a huge economic cost. Furthermore, there will be concerted influences from international and intercontinental powers. These international pressures will certainly prevent the eruption of war because such wars prevent major global ramifications. The only exception on this situation of equality will be the development of the condition in South China Sea into a war. In a bid to take over the oil-rich bases in the South China Sea, powers will put in the necessary measures to achieve this objective. It cannot be disqualified that contesting nations will use strong sea and air warfare plus extreme technology in order to have a share of the advantages (Alagappa, 1995).
Ethno-religious clashes and separatism could be caused directly by the present religious extremism and ethnic tensions. The true ideologies behind these conflicts are extremist opinions that are inclined on a commitment to separating themselves from the larger whole. In essence, they create states with a uniform religious persuasion or an identical ethnic realignment. An example is the religious head in charge of the extremist factions Jemaah Islamiyah and Kumpulan Militant Malaysia (KMM), Sheikh Abu Bakar Bashir. The man is ill-bent on creating an Islamic republic in South Mindanao, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. The wars are probably bound to assume a transnational conception. In fact, in other instances, the groups will be strategically associated with isolated cells that are distributed across countries.
Parts of the groups in the network will solely focus on radicalization of its members in a bid to entrench loyalty and implant extreme, divergent views. Other factions of this special unit will strictly be involved in the financial operations of the group (Wang, 2007). How they get their monies will probably be an amalgamation of crimes like illegal trade in ivory and drug. In extreme radical organizations, such wars could go as far as employing terrorism tendencies to enhance their cause and capture significant international attention via the global media. When they assume terror tactics, they can visit terrible effects on innocent people.
Technically, the determination of such kinds of conflict shall rely on a lot on a number of elements. The greatest of these elements are undeniably political stability and economic prosperity. These levels of growth and development will give the administrations the firm backbone through which they can initiate mitigation programs. Such programs would include sound governance, tolerance of the secular system and national integration initiatives. Laying consistent emphasis on moderation will over time help nip extremist tendencies in the bud. People must be taught the sanctity of life and the importance of peaceful coexistence irrespective of a person’s political, ethnic or religious inclination (Thakur, 2006).
Issues of a transnational perspective will also arise. These issues will be brought to light as a result of the Southeast Asia constantly progressing towards greater regionalization. To give an example, smuggling of illegal drugs and substances will be a crucial fact in the relations of security in the region under study. As a matter of fact, this particular social menace will be prevalent in Myanmar. If Myanmar descends into political instability, it could assist grow private military organizations such as the Khun Sa. Organizations in the nature of Khun Sa, together with their sway, could cross the Myanmar border into other states. Consequently, the prevailing security equilibrium will be upset, and this could further lead to more volatile regional conflicts (Emmers, 2007).
Of importance too is the matter of undocumented immigrants. These groups of the population will keep on altering the demographics in the advancing countries in the Southeast Asia. Eventually, such elements have the potential of affecting social and political volatility. Piracy will also grow. The growth of piracy will be as a result of the need for financial muscle by these extremist groups. Piracy could also cause international strains between countries. Upsurge in piracy could trigger the intervention of continental powers hence swelling the military presence in the area. They will be protecting their shipping resources. It will complicate already delicate relations in the Southeast Asia.
Imminent growth of regional terrorism is the last problem of security in the region. In the yesteryears, terrorist groups were distinct factions who fought different causes. However, regional terrorists will fight for a common agenda across the borders of countries. The terrorists will target civilians because they can easily purchase technologically advanced artillery including chemical-biological armaments. These terrorists will be targeting public infrastructure that are not easy to protect (Hwang, 2006). The terrorists also do not negotiate because they are normally based on ethnoreligious persuasions.
Southeast Asia is a region in fluidity. It is constituted of countries with dissimilar ethnicity, race, linguistic and political ideologies. It is a region that has experience firsthand economic meltdown and financial boom at the same time. In the fight against terror, the region has witnessed constant alignments, realignments and misalignment with the United States of America. When the region combines the terrorism threats, inter-state border problems, intra-country ethnic strains, the region surely has a complex array of security challenges. In addition to these, there is the continuous growth of non-state actors like the Jemaah Islamiyah and the Laksar Jihad that only serve to worsen the already amalgamated security situation in the Southeast Asia region. It is important to note that sustainable economic development and social prosperity can only be achieved in a peaceful and secure environment. Security is there a possibility in the Southeast Asia.
References
Alagappa, M. (1995). Regionalism and conflict management: A framework for analysis. Review of International Studies, 21(04), 359-387.
Anthony, M. C. (2003). Regionalization of peace in Asia: experiences and prospects of ASEAN, ARF and UN partnership
Berkofsky, A. (2003). Can the EU play a meaningful role in Asian security through the ASEAN Regional Forum? European Institute for Asian Studies
Boyd, D. A., & Dosch, J. (2010, January). 11 Securitization practices in Indonesia and the Philippines and their impact on the management of security challenges in ASEAN and the ARF. In Cooperative Security in the Asia-Pacific: The ASEAN Regional Forum (p. 199). Taylor & Francis.
Caballero-Anthony, M. (2010). Non-traditional security challenges, regional governance, and the ASEAN political-security community (APSC).
Emmers, R. (2007). Comprehensive security and resilience in Southeast Asia: ASEAN's approach to terrorism and sea piracy.
Hwang, K. D. (2006). The mechanisms of politico-security regionalism in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa: a comparative case study of ASEAN and SADC (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2006). The UN and Regional Organizations in Global Security: Competing or Complementary Logics? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 12(3), 227-232.
Mak, J. N., & Hamzah, B. A. (1995). The external maritime dimension of ASEAN security. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 18(3), 123-146.
Mukherjee, K. (2013). Prospects and Challenges of ASEAN. Strategic Analysis Journal, 37(6), 742-757.
Parnini, S. N. (2005). New dynamics of regionalization in East Asia: Evolving ASEAN plus three and challenges for Bangladesh. SARID Journal, (1).
Roberts, C. (2010). ASEAN's Myanmar crisis: challenges to the pursuit of a security community. Institute of Southeast Asian.
Thakur, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (2006). Enhancing global governance through regional integration. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 12(3), 233-240.
Wong, L. F. (2007). China–ASEAN and Japan–ASEAN relations during the post-cold war era. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 1(3), 373-404.
Zhang, T. (2005). Six Party Talks and Prospects of Northeast Asian Multilateral Security Regime'. In The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program's conference" Comparing Different Approaches to Conflict Prevention and Management: Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait.
