Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific

MEMORANDUM

3THE CONCEPTS OF COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY AND
COOPERATIVE SECURITY
Introduction
The Asia Pacific is in the throes of unprecedented and unparalleled change. The end of theCold War, accelerated growth in many developing economies, structural economic reforms insome countries, and the increasing economic linkages among states in particular are radicallyaltering the domestic and international strategic environment in the region.
The profound changes in the strategic scene are prompting the re-examination of security
concepts and policies adopted in the past. The prevailing strategic outlook offers a window ofopportunity for the review and development of fresh approaches and concepts. In particular,
security is being perceived by an increasing number of states not in military terms alone but inwider, more comprehensive terms. In a highly interdependent world, states are also realisingthat security is best achieved through cooperation rather than aggressive confrontation.
Cognisant of these, the Council on Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
established a Working Group to examine the concepts of comprehensive security andcooperative security.
With these considerations in mind also, the first meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum on 25July, 1994 agreed to study “the comprehensive concept of security”. At its second meeting on
1 August, 1995 it referred specifically to the notion of “comprehensive security”, and noted in
the Chairman’s Statement that “the ARF recognises that the concept of comprehensivesecurity includes not only military aspects but also political, economic, social and otherissues”.

AimThe aim of this memorandum is to set out an over-arching organising concept for themanagement of security in the region which might be agreeable to states in the Asia Pacificregion as they come together in a common endeavour to promote security in the region. This
organising concept is referred to as the concept of comprehensive security.

Key considerations
In formulating this organising concept, enunciated in the form of a set of principles, thefollowing are some of the key considerations that have been taken into account:Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
Memorandum 3 – The concepts of comprehensive security and cooperative security11. The ongoing efforts to develop region-wide collaborative processes, in particular theestablishment of the ARF and CSCAP, have made such a concept desirable, evennecessary. The concept would greatly facilitate consensus building and the formulation ofstrategies, processes, institutions and measures to manage security.
2. The Asia Pacific region is large and extremely diverse in terms of domestic and external
security concerns; actors (states, non-governmental organisations, multinational
enterprises and bilateral as well as multilateral institutions); political and social systems;
and cultures. The organising concept must therefore:▪

be of an ‘overarching’ variety, adaptable enough to accommodate the diverse security
concerns of all regional states. While identifying themselves with the broad outlines of
the concept, states should be free to emphasise different aspects of the concept
pertinent to their special security requirements;▪

focus sufficiently on common concerns and shared interests in national policy
approaches relevant for regional collaboration; and▪

not endeavour to be too ambitious in scope and content, to the extent whereindividual states come to find the entire concept unacceptable.

3. Asia Pacific security cannot be entirely divorced from global security. This factor has to beborne in mind when developing regional strategies.
4. The security concerns of states in the Asia Pacific region are not confined to the external
sphere alone. Pressing and enormous domestic challenges with security consequences
confront many societies, in particular the developing countries of the region.
5. Many states have shifted defence strategy and planning from threat-based premises tointerest-based calculations with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance oftraditional enemies. The shift is of course not complete; threat perceptions, even of anuncertain and ill-defined character, still feature in the defence plans of many countries.
6. As power becomes more diffused in the Asia Pacific region and the more multipolar orpluralistic power structure emerges, unilateralism cannot be a sustainable option forsettling disputes among states. Building upon and complementing the normal bilateral ties
between states, sub-regionalism and regionalism will become more credible andproductive options.
7. Neither collective security nor balance of power approaches are of themselves adequateorganising principles for the region because security of vital interests and core values
extends beyond the military sphere and comprehensive security can only be attained
through cooperation based on common interests. Collective security and balance ofpower therefore need to be complemented, or at times superseded, but comprehensive
security approaches.

The concept of comprehensive security
Comprehensive security is the pursuit of sustainable security in all fields (personal, political,economic, social, cultural, military, environmental) in both the domestic and external spheres,
essentially through cooperative means.
The concept of comprehensive security, as advocated here, contains elements that havebeen identified with the concept of comprehensive security articulated by Japan, the concept
of comprehensive security espoused and practised by ASEAN, the concept of cooperative
security, and the concept of common security. The concept outlined here is termed“comprehensive security” because a key defining element of the concept is thecomprehensive nature in which security is viewed. The vital interests or core values of states
are varied and comprehensive, as are the instruments and processes used to protect themand the capabilities required to assure them. The term “comprehensive security” is also used
Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
Memorandum 3 – The concepts of comprehensive security and cooperative security2

because that term has been recognised by the ARF. The distinctive features of the organisingconcept are briefly articulated below.

The principle of comprehensivenessComprehensive security posits that security of person, community and state is multifaceted
and multidimensional in character. Ultimately security encompasses the security of all thefundamental needs, core values and vital interests of the individual and society in every field –economic, social, political, cultural, environmental and military. Any significant threat to thecomprehensive well-being of man, society and state, whether emanating from externalsources or from within a state, is deemed a threat to security.
Hence denial of legitimate access to vital fuel resources from abroad or import of food,actions which severely affect a nation’s export earnings, and conditions and demands which
seriously erode an economy’s competitiveness and viability, can be threats to security in theeconomic sphere.
Economic issues have risen to the top of the agenda in virtually all regional states, andeconomic security concerns have followed suit despite rising prosperity in many previously
poorer East Asian states. The primary economic security-related issues include poverty(which afflicts many hundred millions in East Asia), unemployment, severe dislocations
caused by structural reform in reforming economies, apprehensions regarding loss ofeconomic primacy, fears of the decline of competitive capability, dependence upon external
and aid, heavy debt burdens, food and energy sufficiency, and the threat of economic
sanctions.
Rampant drug abuse, disruptive social consequences of mass migrations, epidemics and asevere decline in ethical standards (as evidenced from growing corruption for instance) canconstitute threats to security in the social sphere.
The political dimension would include among others threats or challenges to the body politic
from subversion, insurgency, civil strife, irredentism and ethnic or religious extremism andunrest. It would also include threats to life and personal liberties (as defined in the Bill ofRights and endorsed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action).
Environmental challenges to security would include global warming, threats to biodiversity,
cross-border flows and spillovers of atmospheric pollution, unsustainable resource utilisation,
land and maritime pollution and severe environmental damage leading to repercussions onhuman and economic welfare.
Military and physical security issues would include threats of external aggression, protectionof resources in exclusive economic zones, disputes over territory, the security of sea-lanes,
proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and enhancementof military power.

The limits to the principle of comprehensivenessIf security is comprehensive, where do we draw the line? When say, does an economic issue
become a security problem and when does it not? These questions have always confronted
comprehensive security advocates, theorists and practitioners.
It is suggested that a problem may be regarded as a comprehensive security problem when it
is perceived as threatening, or as having the clear potential to threaten, the security of thevital interests or core values of the person, the community or the state. Thus extreme andwidespread poverty which is assessed to have the real prospect of causing famine, death,civil strife and serious instability would be a comprehensive security problem. Limited poverty
is not.
Obviously, such a criterion carries with it a degree of subjectivity. This however isunavoidable. Indeed a certain degree of subjectivity must be accommodated, since tolerance
Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
Memorandum 3 – The concepts of comprehensive security and cooperative security

3thresholds for security can differ between states. Subjectivities have also characterised
conventional (military-related) notions of security though perhaps in different ways.
Further, perceiving a problem as a comprehensive security issue does not preclude it frombeing addressed as a non-security problem as well. Widespread drug abuse threatening thehealth of the individual and the community can be treated as both a security and social
problem simultaneously.

The principle of mutual interdependence
Comprehensive security also denotes a mutuality and interdependence between the various
dimensions of security. Political, economic, social, cultural, environmental and physicalsecurity are all mutually supportive and reinforcing, and the security of a state is not assured
until it is secure in every dimension. Domestic peace and political stability cannot besustained without shared economic prosperity; economic development cannot be pursuedover the longer term if the environment is degraded substantially’ social ills undermine
economic vitality and defence capacity; and a militarily weak state will find it difficult to protect
its territorial, political and economic interests in the face of physical intimidation.

The principle of cooperative peace and shared security
Cooperation is a defining element of comprehensive security, especially in the external
sphere. Perceiving security in cooperative terms is especially pertinent as states andcommunities become more and more interdependent and linked by technology,communications, interstate production networks and trade and investment flows.
While comprehensive security does not ignore asymmetries in the distribution of power
egalitarianism is also implied in the notion of cooperation. To be durable and productive
cooperation must proceed on the basis of accepted norms and principles including equality
and mutual respect. Cooperative processes must accommodate and balance the interests ofall parties, and avoid asserting the agenda of a state or group of states to the detriment ofothers.

The principle of self-reliance
While non-threatening, mutually beneficial defence cooperation among states may comprise arelevant ingredient of comprehensive security, the principle of self-reliance in defence matters
also befits a post Cold War situation where perceived military threats have declined.

The principle of inclusiveness
Inclusive collaborative processes and engagement are of critical importance incomprehensive security applied through cooperative means. Exclusion of any country,
prepared to be involved, should be avoided, if the creation of conflictual situations is to beprevented. Regional cooperation for security should not be directed against any country. In
this regard alliance systems, including those which, since the end of the Cold War, have noclearly defined adversary, are a diminished option for comprehensive security management in
the region.

The principle of peaceful engagement
Comprehensive security, in common with cooperative security, emphasises non-military
approaches to protect core values and vital interests. Many of these vital interests area in any
case non-military in nature (such as environmental security issues in general) and in such
instances military approaches are inappropriate except in exceptional circumstances.
Comprehensive security stresses instead confidence-building, preventive diplomacy andpeaceful resolution of conflicts and differences. Military capabilities should as far as possible

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
Memorandum 3 – The concepts of comprehensive security and cooperative security4be ‘defensive’ and non-threatening in nature, and arms control and transparency measures
are an important element of comprehensive security.

The principle of good citizenshipThe concept of comprehensive security calls upon all regional states to be good citizens of aregional and global order of shared peace and prosperity. Good neighbourliness and all theaccepted norms and principles of peaceful and responsible international behaviour should
govern comprehensive security relations among states.

Implementing comprehensive security: the mechanisms
Comprehensive security cannot be implemented by a single process either regionally ordomestically. Its comprehensive nature suggests a multiplicity of broadly complementary
processes (including ‘track two’ processes) and mechanisms addressing specific areas. This
however does not preclude institutions and processes for overall coordination and direction
both at the national (for example a National Security Council) and regional levels (for example
the ASEAN Regional Forum).
Comprehensive security issues also need not be addressed in ostensibly ‘security’ processes
alone. They can be handled in forums such as APEC, or in bilateral and sub-regional
economic cooperation processes when consistent with their basic purposes.
For comprehensive security issues to be addressed more satisfactorily and effectively at theregional level, the ASEAN Regional Forum process in particular will have to be strengthened
incrementally. Its agenda too will have to be broadened, to give greater room to non-militaryissues.

Conclusion
Much work remains to be done to refine and articulate in depth the concept of comprehensive security inall its dimensions. What the outline above does is merely to highlight its key characteristics, sufficient toprovide the basis for an overarching and common approach towards organising security in the Asia
Pacific region.

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
Memorandum 3 – The concepts of comprehensive security and cooperative security

5