Alan Collins

A People-Oriented ASEAN: A Door Ajar or Closed for Civil Society Organizations?

��� ASEAN has proclaimed the rhetoric of becoming “people-oriented” in a number of documents over recent years and this phrase also appears in the Association’s new Charter. The prospect that ASEAN is moving away from being state-centric and elite-driven to one that is “people-empowering” has brought ASEAN onto the radar screens of civil society organizations (CSOs). These CSOs, encouraged by ASEAN reaching out to engage with them in its Socio-Cultural Community Plan of Action, have responded enthusiastically to this rhetoric and since 2005 there have been a plethora of ASEAN civil society conferences. Despite this the ASEAN Charter has not been well received by CSOs; indeed they are aiming to adopt an alternative (an ASEAN Peoples’ Charter). This article examines why CSOs are disappointed with the Charter and what ASEAN means by “peopleoriented”.

The Security Dilemmas of Southeast Asia

List of Tables Preface Introduction: Evolution of the Security Dilemma PART I: INTRA-STATE SECURITY DILEMMA Third World Security: Security and Insecurity Dilemma Ethnic Tensions and the Security Dilemma in Southeast Asia PART II: INTER-STATE SECURITY DILEMMA ASEANs Security Dilemma PART III: STATE-INDUCED SECURITY DILEMMA ASEAN, the China Threat and the South China Sea Dispute Conclusion: Application and Mitigation Index

Securitization, Frankenstein's Monster and Malaysian education

Abstract In 2002 the Malaysian government announced it would reintroduce English as a medium of instruction in all Malaysian primary schools. The reaction of the Tamil, Malay and Chinese educationalists was damning, with the latter referring to the decision as the ‘final solution’ for mandarin education in Malaysias national education system. The furore created in 2002 led the Malaysian government to threaten Chinese educationalists with its draconian Internal Security Act (ISA); this was not an insignific threat, as the government had detained Chinese educationalists previously under the ISA in 1987. In this article I use the Copenhagen Schools notions of societal security and securitization to reveal why the medium of instruction used in Chinese National-type primary schools is regarded as a matter of security by Chinese educationalists. I reveal that while the Chinese educationalists engage in securitization discourse, their aim is to keep the issue at the politicized end of the securitization spectrum. However, when this discourse coincides with the government feeling weak, the governing elite use the language to securitize the situation and crush their opponents – this reveals the appropriateness of Kyle Graysons analogy between securitization and Frankensteins Monster. The article therefore both operationalizes securitization and also reveals the perilous state of Mandarin education in Malaysias national education system.

State-Induced Security Dilemma: Maintaining the Tragedy

The security dilemma, first coined by John Herz in 1950, has come to explain why states that do not seek to harm one another can still end up in competition and war. Its very essence is one of tragedy. The security dilemma has been expounded since by a number of authors, and in this article I examine one such development; Jack Snyder’s definition of the security dilemma, being applicable where one state requiresthe insecurity of another. I label this a state-induced security dilemma. I argue that in order for this to be an accurate expansion of the security dilemma, the essence of tragedy must be retained. I suggest that with some refinement Snyder’s definition does extend the application of the security dilemma and raises important questions regarding the dilemma’s mitigation and escape. I have used the relationship between China and Taiwan to elucidate the utility of the state-induced security dilemma.

The Ethnic Security Dilemma: Evidence from Malaysia

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the security literature has increasingly become focused on problems within states. This has led a number of scholars to apply ideas traditionally associated with international security to internal security issues. One such case concerns the application of the security dilemma to ethnic tensions. This article considers this appli cation with reference to Malaysia and argues that not only can the security dilemma be applied, but that the coalition regime and the notion of Bangsa Malaysia represent the types of power-sharing and ethnic reconstruction which can mitigate and ultimately escape the security dilemma. In the post-Cold War era, a burgeoning literature has arisen on ethnic conflict as communities within the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Soma lia and elsewhere have resorted to violence against one another. This literature has encompassed a wide variety of approaches, with authors applying such concepts as the insecurity dilemma,1 democratization2 and identity,3 among others, to help provide an insight into the dynam ics at work. This article will develop further the use of the security dilemma, originally applied to ethnic conflict by Barry Posen, in help ing to reveal these dynamics.4 The goal is to clarify the applicability of the security dilemma, to apply it to Malaysia, and to determine why Malaysia has been able to mitigate the dilemmas worst effects and whether it is actually moving away from the security dilemma.

Burma's civil war: A case of societal security

In this article, Burmas civil war is explained with reference to societal security. It is argued that at the heart of the civil war lies the nation‐building approach of the dominant Burman ethnic group, which has sought to assimilate Burmas ethnic minorities. The minorities have resisted this assimilation, or Burmanisation, because they wish to protect their identities. A solution to the civil war is therefore dependent upon Burmas multiethnic composition being safeguarded in a multiethnic nation‐ building approach. Although in 2000 a peace dialogue began between the military regime and the opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), these talks have not only stalled, but also the Burmanisation approach has continued. The civil war, although reduced in its intensity, remains.

Bringing communities back: Security communities and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ plural turn

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is building a people-oriented community in Southeast Asia and it has all the hallmarks of a Deutschian security community, with its emphasis on people-to-people contact and the involvement of civil society organisations in the community’s creation. In this article the argument is made that it is precisely the involvement of the masses that creates the peace inertia associated with security communities, and thus ASEAN’s plural turn is an essential first step in making ASEAN’s community a security community. Whether ASEAN can actually do this, and indeed whether the membership are united in this objective, is not the focus for this article. Instead, and contrary to the security community literature, which identifies ASEAN as a non-liberal security community and has emphasised the practice of self-restraint, this article argues that past ASEAN practice has prevented a security community forming in Southeast Asia, and using self-restraint as an explanation for why security communities create dependable expectations of peaceful change for members has resulted in the agency of ‘community’ being neglected. Hence, this article argues for the need to bring ‘community’ back.

Mitigating the security dilemma the ASEAN way

Despite the end of the Cold War and the threat of communist insurgency, the states of Southeast Asia continued to acquire weapons in the 1990s. Indeed Southeast Asia witnessed an increase not only in quantitative terms but also qualitatively, economic prosperity enjoyed by these ‘tiger economies’ enabling the regimes to order sophisticated aircraft and naval capabilities. The economic crisis of the late 1990s has curtailed some of these projects, with those hardest hit—Thailand and Indonesia—postponing indefinitely their orders for advanced fighter planes. Although the economic crisis has not stopped arms procurement by all states in the region, it has clearly brought an abrupt end to the regions arms build‐up.

ASEAN: Challenged from Within and Without

The clouds of the financial storm that raged in 1997–98 continue, metaphorically, to envelope Southeast Asia. Although the region is showing signs of financial recovery it is tentative and remains vulnerable to shocks in the international political economy. The loss of financial confidence in the American market following a series of scandals in 2002, coupled to the threat of war against Iraq, has begun to impact upon the economic recovery of Southeast Asia. Singapore, the region’s economically most secure state, recorded only a 3.7 per cent rate of growth between July and September 2002. This was considerably less than the 7 per cent estimated rate of growth for the third quarter, and whereas this quarter was expected to show a levelling out on a quarter-on-quarter basis, it actually dropped by 10.3 per cent. The literal clouds that float over the region are no less threatening. With the forest-fires on Kalimantan and elsewhere in Indonesia sending pollutants now annually into the atmosphere, the euphemistically named ‘haze’ remains a significant economic and environmental problem. On the ground a variety of transnational problems are threatening the stability of the region. These include drug trafficking, which in 1999 the Thai government identified as the number one threat to national security. Other forms of international crime (people-smuggling, money laundering), and since 11 September 2001 global terrorism, are also causing tensions in the region.

Ethnic Tensions and the Security Dilemma in Southeast Asia

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the applicability of the security dilemma to ethnic tensions within Southeast Asia and the prospects of mitigating its effects. The chapter does not provide an analysis of all ethnic tensions in the region because such an undertaking would be beyond the scope of one chapter. Rather than examining each ASEAN member separately the analysis will focus on three case studies involving ethnic conflict: ethnocratic regimes; self-determination; migration. In all three case studies the focus is on the existence of the three characteristics of the security dilemma in the relations between ethnic groups, and also between ethnic groups and the regime. Is their fear of losing their identity based upon an illusory incompatibility? Is their fear a misperception based upon uncertainty of the other’s intent? Are their solutions paradoxical and result in making matters worse by creating a real threat to their ethnicity? This section will then be followed with an examination of power-sharing and ethnic reconstruction to determine if these explain the apparent success of some ASEAN states in mitigating the intra-state security dilemma. However, because the security dilemma operates in a self-help environment, it is first necessary to determine whether the ASEAN members are weak states.