Non-Traditional Security Issues inSoutheast Asia and limited public
participation
National Grad. Institute for Policy Studies
Takeshi Kohno, Assoc. Prof. of Political
Science (kohnotokyo@yahoo.co.jp）

Southeast Asia

Two Different Formation Patterns of SE
Asian Nations• Island SE A（Indonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, Singapore, and E. Timor）：Productof Colonialism• Inland SE A（Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia,Vietnam, Lao PDR）：Product of land-based
kingdoms.

Two Patterns of SE Asian
formations

Thus, a great diversity in SE Asia
• Geographic• Ethinic• Religious• Linguistic• Ecological• Economic• Political/AdministrativeTroubles in “Decolonizing” Muslim Areas?
Wars, IDPs, Environmental and health crises….
Also in SE Asia
–African East-West Line
(Southern Sudan,Northern/Southern
Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia,Somalia, Kenya)– Central Asia (Chechen,Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan,Tajikistan, Afghanistan)–

India/Pakistan Border–

Eastern Indonesia–

Southern Thailand/Malaypeninsula–

Mindanao/ThePhilippines–

Former Yugoslavia War

Non-Traditional Security Problems – andthey are often addressed regionally• SE Asian Problems:• “Human Security”
Refugees, Internallyissues (1994 UNDP):
displaced peoples
unchecked population(Mindanao, Southern
growth, disparities inThailand, Poso inIndonesia), humaneconomic opportunities,trafficking, terrorism,
migration pressures,
drug trafficking,environmental
environmental
degradation, drug
degradation, avian flu
trafficking, international(top 2 infected nations
are Indonesia andterrorism….
Vietnam)Great Resolutions, Declarations, but
Hard to Implement….
• Transboundary
Haze• Sustainable
environment• Terrorism• Immigration• Drug Trafficking• “Recalling..”• “Welcoming..”• “Encouraged..”• “Determined..”• “Reiterate..”• “Launch..”• “Establish…”• “Endorse…”• “Commit…”

North Korea

ASEAN・PMC

RussiaARF
EUCanadaUSA
China

Myanmar
Laos
Cambodia

Pakistan
Bangladesh

India

ASEAN
Sri Lanka
East Timor

Thailand
Viet Nam
Philippines
Malaysia
BruneiSingapore
Indonesia

Korea
Japan

ASEAN+3
Australia
New Zealand

APEC
Mexico
Peru
Chile

Papua
New Guinea
TaiwanHong KongASEAN Political /Security Community
by 2015?
• How effective is it to have “a community” wheneach country is having problems of its own?
• THE problem of non-interference doctrine• Troubles with Myanmar (acute militarydictatorship)• A huge perception gap between elites and people
re: “ASEAN”• As mentioned earlier, there is a real lack ofenforcement mechanism – declaration is one
thing, but enforcing vision is anotherAre people relevant in tackling nontraditional security issues?
• Dictatorship/au
thoritarianism
may be fasterand effective toact.
• Majority of SE
Asians don’tknow issues
well anyway.

• Democracyreflects people’sneeds.
• SE Asian people
are the mostaffected.
• Peopleunderstand theextent of nontraditional
security issues.

2 Cases of Public Participation: mostly
2nd track initiatives• ASEAN people’s Assembly(1st time in Nov. 2000)
organized by ASEAN-ISIS,
funded by Japanese ODA,
CIDA, OSI, TAF, and continue
to the 9th meeting this year.
• Issues taken up: women’s
empowerment, Freedom ofspeech, human rights issues,
good governance, humansecurity issues,environmental degradation,
ASEAN community building• Southeast Asian Conflict
Studies Network organized byDr. Zam Askandar, Univ. Sains
Malaysia (Penang) in 2001,
funded by SIDA.
• Issues taken up: regional
conflict (Aceh, Papua, Maluku,
Mindanao, Southern
Thailand), causes, solutions,emergency responses, victims
care.
• Put together wide varieties ofNGOs from the region.

2nd Track Approach will continue• Nature of non-traditional security issues requires
professional inputs from thinktanks• Weak bureaucratic capabilities• Forging linkages (for confidence building, preventative
diplomacy, alliance, dialogues) via 2nd track is least
costly (mostly done in English and on internet) bothintra-ASEAN and with non-ASEAN nations.
• 2nd track can identify common norms and values andshare information without state constraints• But the downside is 1st track-2nd track linkage is fragile– political leadership may act against 2nd track
depending on issues.

But, again, limited public
participation from this 2nd track
approach• Back to the enforcement problem (statecapacity)• Public participation is required to tackle nontraditional security issues – i.e. haze, terrorism,
piracy…

Toward 2-3 track linkages• Fill in the huge gap between 2 and 3 tracks• Problem of great diversity while increasingstate capacity to enforce “declarations” and“visions”• Rustow’s classic thesis – national unity is theonly precondition for democracy – begs for
democratic state strength for enforcement• There may be different approaches between
Island- and Inland SE Asia

Using Social Linkages• State strength is limited, then, what could be
an alternative?
• 4 key actors: government offices, education
institutions, religious/social organizations,media industries• These 4 need to act at the same time: i.e.
Aceh (2000-2004) and Mindanao cases – graveinconsistencies of the government offices, andmedia (discriminatory languages and public
ignorance).

Thank you