CSCAP MEMORANDUM NO. 26

Towards an Effective Regional Security Architecture
for the Asia Pacific

A Memorandum from theCouncil for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
June 2014

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
Memorandum No. 26
Towards an Effective Regional Security Architecture
for the Asia Pacific
June 2014
Introduction
The proliferation of multilateral security processes and institutions in the Asia
Pacific in the wake of the Cold War is a testament to the region’s constructiveand collegial spirit toward addressing security challenges. The formation of theASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994 paved the way for the region to approachsecurity in a cooperative and inclusive manner. Although the ARF offered a novel
departure from competitive security structures, and was followed by processes
such as the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Defence Ministerial
Meeting Plus (ADMM Plus), the US-led ‘hub and spokes’ system continues to beviewed by some states in the region as a stabilizing force.
In light of the scale and complexity of security challenges confronting the region,CSCAP considered it timely to review the regional security architecture and offer
recommendations to strengthen and improve on the existing regional security
arrangements and processes.
Regional Security Architecture in the Asia Pacific: The State of PlayThe Asia Pacific is emerging from the post-Cold War transition period. In theimmediate aftermath of the Cold War, a strong analytical consensus emergedthat the region - East Asia in particular - would, in time, become a decisively
important part of the global economy and, at the same time, encounter significant
challenges to order and stability.
The region lived up to its fullest expectations on the economic front. On thesecurity front, in the opinion of some states, the condition of unipolarity in theimmediate post-Cold War period helped contain the associated stress on stabilityand order. In addition, the region, led by ASEAN, began to develop multilateralprocesses to widen the range of instruments available to states to preserve orderand stability amidst increasingly deep and far-reaching changes in strategic
weight within the region and between the region and other major centers ofpower.

1

The prevailing circumstances allowed this multilateral undertaking to beapproached cautiously and without urgency. The processes that ASEAN
established were allowed to evolve ‘at a pace comfortable to all’ and not pressed
into substantive roles. As a result, they have remained relatively soft andexperimental, reliant on other processes and mechanisms to sustain order andstability, and not generating clear perceptions of contributing substantively tothese objectives.
CSCAP is of the view that the Asia Pacific is moving beyond the relative
tranquility of this post-Cold War period. The contemporary reality holds theprospect of intensifying strategic competition amongst the larger statesaccompanied by accelerated modernization of military forces and a heightenedrisk of arms race. Further, the stress of far-reaching region-wide strategic change
is beginning to expose fragilities within and among a wider group of states in theregion.
The challenge to order and stability in the region is, therefore, intensifying. In
spite of stabilizing roles that the existing arrangements and processes haveplayed, there is a gathering sense that their strength and efficacy may prove
inadequate. In this context, a set of robust multilateral processes that are bothmore influential in shaping the behaviour of states and more capable ofgenerating effective and timely responses to developments that threaten orderand stability in the region could prove to be of decisive value.
The aspiration to put in place an array of multilateral forums with the qualities ofauthority, responsibility and accountability, that is, processes with weight andgravitas, clearly exists. CSCAP believes that given the emerging regional
environment, it is simply prudent to now resolve to address this aspiration withmore determination and a greater sense of urgency.
Problems and Issues
A. The disconnect between economic and security processes
It is increasingly becoming clear that economic interdependence alone cannot
ensure the peace and stability of the region. Continued economic prosperity
ultimately depends on a reliably stable geopolitical order.
Hence, the Asia Pacific must now focus its endeavours on fashioning andsustaining such a geopolitical order.

2

B. Problems associated with existing regional security frameworks
The existing regional security architecture – the US-centered alliances, ASEANdriven multilateral processes, and various bilateral arrangements – has worked
relatively well over the past decades.
However, given the changing nature and scale of emerging challenges, we needto further enhance the capacity of regional multilateral security processes tofacilitate the socialization of security issues, development of normative
frameworks, and provide space for collective cooperative actions.
ASEAN has been playing a critical role in facilitating regional security dialogue
and cooperation. However, there is scope for effectively strengthening ASEAN’srole, particularly in the areas of connectivity and coordination amongst ASEANrelated institutions and processes, and providing greater capacity and resources.
Recommendations
CSCAP proposes the following sets of recommendation for consideration byrelevant governments and institutions for aneffective regional security
architecture for the Asia Pacific.
A. Strengthening ASEAN
ASEAN centrality remains an important element for regional security architecture.
However, for ASEAN to remain central, it has to become more effective inplaying this role. In this regard, ASEAN, with the support of others, should:
1. Continue to develop its unity and cohesion by, among other measures,
implementing fully the Blueprints for the ASEAN Community in and beyond
2015,
2. Play a leading role in developing a clear vision and roadmap for anenduring rules-based regional security order, and,3. Strengthen the capacity of the ASEAN Secretariat and other ASEAN
institutions to effectively deal with issues related to ASEAN security andcontribute to regional security, including by strengthening the ARF Unit
within the ASEAN Secretariat and developing comparable capacities tosupport the EAS, ADMM Plus, and the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum(EAMF).

3B. Enhancing the management of multilateral processes
There is scope to enhance the management of these inter-linked processes
through improving connectivity and coordination. Practical steps may include:
1. Clearly delineating the primary role and competency of each process suchas to look to the EAS for strategic direction, to the ARF for structured
security dialogue, and to the ADMM Plus and EAMF for practical security
cooperation, and,
2. Ensuring that each process is promptly and formally advised of theoutcomes in the other forums so that responses to issues can be more
effectively coordinated and expedited.
C. The role of the East Asia Summit (EAS)
The East Asia Summit (EAS), because it is a leaders-led forum with acorrespondingly broad remit, could be seen as the logical forum to lead the way
in adopting practices and procedures intended to enhance its influence andauthority on regional political and security issues. As it consists of a strong criticalmass of participants with regional presence and interests, the EAS has theappropriate composition to evolve and uphold regional security principles andnorms.
 Sharing Principles
The EAS, in sharing principles should attach primary importance to the following:
1. Renunciation of the use of coercive measures, most particularly, the threator use of force in the settlement of disputes,
2. Open, inclusive, evolutionary, and dialogue-centered processes to build
habits and norms of cooperation, leading to enhanced commitments topeace and stability in the long run, and,3. Respect for the principles embedded in the ASEAN Treaty of Amity andCooperation, the United Nations Charter, and international law.
 Incremental institutionalization
CSCAP further recommends that consideration be given to ways and means ofadapting the present EAS format for the institutionalization of this forum. Thisprocess should include the following:4

1. ASEAN should lead the development of a clear vision and roadmap for theinstitutionalization of the EAS,
2. Extension of this summit to ensure that leaders have a full day for
substantive discussions on an agreed agenda, beyond the usual time set
for bilateral and retreats,
3. Adjustment of existing procedures for agenda-setting to develop a clearand wider sense of ownership of a process directed at the challenge ofpreserving a stable and orderly region. In this regard, ASEAN may
consider joint chairmanship of the EAS with non-ASEAN member
countries, and,4. Consideration of the establishment of an EAS secretariat capable ofhelping to build continuity between summits and contributing to thequalities of responsibility to implement decisions and accountability.
D. The role of CSCAP
Established as a second track process to provide research-based policy
recommendations to the ARF, the role of CSCAP needs to be enhanced. It has
the responsibility of maintaining and developing its capacity for identifying andprioritizing issues for consideration by Track-one institutions, including inparticular engaging in the initial exploration of issues Track One may be hesitant
to address. In this regard, its role can be enhanced by the:1. Creation of substantive institutional linkages with, and support from Trackone security institutions, including the ARF, ADMM Plus, and the EAMF,
and2. Maintenance of CSCAP’s Track-two character and processes including
open discussions of policy relevant issues.
Concluding Remarks
CSCAP is committed to an approach to regional security architecture thatconsolidates existing institutions and processes rather than creating new ones. In
this regard, it believes that the short- term goal should be a security framework toensure peace and prosperity for all, while the long-term goal would be thebuilding of a stable regional community inthe Asia Pacific.

5

ABOUT CSCAP
CSCAP is a non-governmental (second track) process for dialogue on security
issues in the Asia Pacific. Membership in CSCAP is on an institutional basis andconsists of Member Committees. Current membership comprises Australia,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, the EU, India, Indonesia, Japan,
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,Mongolia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnamand the USA.
The functions of CSCAP are as follows:a. to provide an informal mechanism by which political and security issues
can be discussed by scholars, officials, and others in their private
capacities;
b. to encourage the participants of such individuals from countries andterritories in the Asia Pacific on the basis of the principle of inclusiveness;c. to organise various working groups to address security issues andchallenges facing the region;d. to provide policy recommendations to various intergovernmental bodies onpolitical-security issues;e. to convene regional and international meetings and other cooperative
activities for the purpose of discussing political-security issues;
f. to establish linkages with institutions and organisations in other parts of theworld to exchange information, insights and experiences in the area ofregional political-security cooperation; andg. to produce and disseminate publications relevant to the other purposes ofthe organisation.
Study Groups are the primary mechanism for CSCAP activity. As of June 2014,
there were three CSCAP Study Groups. These are concerned with: (i)Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Asia Pacific.
(ii) Principles for Good Order at Sea; and (iii) Regional Security Architecture.
This memorandum was produced by the CSCAP Study Group on Regional
Security Architecture and was approved by the 41st CSCAP Steering Committee
Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 5 June 2014.
Further information on CSCAP can be obtained from the CSCAP website atwww.cscap.org or by contacting the CSCAP Secretariat:

6

CSCAP Secretariat
c/o ISIS Malaysia
1 Persiaran Sultan Salahuddin
PO Box 12424
50778 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
T: +603-2693 9366 Ext 125
F: +603-2693 9375
E: cscap@isis.org.my7

CSCAP Memoranda
CSCAP Memoranda are the outcome of the work of Study Groups approved by theSteering Committee and submitted for consideration by the ASEAN Regional Forumand other bodies.
 Memorandum No.25 – Maritime CBMs, Trust and Managing Incidents at Sea
Author: Study Group on Principles for Good Order at Sea
Date published: June 2014
 Memorandum No.24 – Safety and Security of Vital Undersea CommunicationsInfrastructure
Author: Experts Group on Vital Undersea Communications Infrastructure
Date published: May 2014
 Memorandum No.23 – Enhancing Water Security in the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Water Resources Security
Date published: January 2014
 Memorandum No.22 – Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: September 2012
 Memorandum No.21 – Implications of Naval Enhancement in the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Naval Enhancement in the Asia PacificDate published: August 2012
 Memorandum No.20 – Ensuring A Safer Cyber Security Environment
Author: Study Group on Cyber Security
Date published: May 2012
 Memorandum No.19 – Reduction and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: February 2012
 Memorandum No.18 – Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)
Author: Study Group on the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)
Date published: September 2011
 Memorandum No.17 – Promoting the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: June 20118 Memorandum No.16 – Safety and Security of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
Author: Study Group on Safety and Security of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
Date published: January 2011
 Memorandum No.15 – The Security Implications of Climate Change
Author: Study Group on the Security Implications of Climate Change
Date published: July 2010
 Memorandum No.14 – Guidelines for Managing Trade of Strategic GoodsAuthor: Export Controls Experts Group (XCXG)
Date published: March 2009
 Memorandum No.13 – Guidelines for Maritime Cooperation in Enclosed and SemiEnclosed Seas and Similar Sea Areas of the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia
Pacific
Date published: June 2008
 Memorandum No.12 – Maritime Knowledge and Awareness: Basic Foundations ofMaritime Security
Author: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia
Pacific
Date published: December 2007
 Memorandum No.11 – Human TraffickingAuthor: Study Group on Human Trafficking
Date published: June 2007
 Memorandum No.10 – Enhancing Efforts to Address Factors Driving InternationalTerrorism
Author: Study Group on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Campaign Against
International Terrorism with Specific Reference to the Asia Pacific Region
Date published: December 2005
 Memorandum No.9 – Trafficking of Firearms in the Asia Pacific Region
Author: Working Group on Transnational Crime
Date published: May 2004
 Memorandum No.8 – The Weakest Link? Seaborne Trade and the Maritime
Regime in the Asia PacificAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: April 20049 Memorandum No.7 – The Relationship Between Terrorism and Transnational
CrimeAuthor: Working Group on Transnational Crime
Date published: July 2003
 Memorandum No.6 – The Practice of the Law of the Sea in the Asia PacificAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: December 2002
 Memorandum No.5 – Cooperation for Law and Order at Sea
Author: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: February 2001
 Memorandum No.4 – Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation
Author: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: December 1997
 Memorandum No.3 – The Concepts of Comprehensive Security and Cooperative
SecurityAuthor: Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security
Date published: December 1995
 Memorandum No.2 – Asia Pacific Confidence and Security Building Measures
Author: Working Group on Confidence and Security Building Measures
Date published: June 1995
 Memorandum No.1 – The Security of the Asia Pacific Region
Author: CSCAP
Date published: April 1994

10