Session I & II: Change in North and the Regional Security

The Regional Security Context : Comparing Europe and East Asia

by Seo-Hang Lee

I. Introduction

Europe, the western Europe in particular, was a well-structured international region for the past five decades: the very model of formal regional integration, which other groups of countries aspired to imitate. Today, many scholars and experts in international relations tend to talk of European integration as a 'model', an 'example', and a 'challenge' to other regional experiments; even of 'the demonstration effect' of successful European regionalism. The revival of the momentum of West European integration in the 1980s - the revision of the Treaty of Rome through the Single European Act, the '1992' single-market programme, moves towards the abolition of internal frontiers, progress even in the most sensitive fields of money, foreign policy, and defence - revived hopes in other regions that, in the 1990s, they might be able to follow the same path.¹⁾

As far as the security field is concerned, Europe also has the most developed array of institutions and procedures to cope with conflict history has ever seen. The period between mid-1970s and mid-1990s was marked by a series of achievements in confidence building and conventional arms control.

In the changing political climate in Europe at the end of the cold war the emphasis was on enhancing stability and security and a number of confidence building and arms control negotiations were brought to a successful conclusion. Capping a period which included the drawn-out Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction(MBFR) Talks(1973-89) and the important signing of the Stockholm Document in 1986 and the Vienna Document in 1992 respectively, the signing of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe(the CFE Treaty) in November 1990, together with that of the 1992 Concluding Act of the Negotiation on Personnel Strength of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe(the CFE-1A Agreement), soon thereafter ushered in a new era in European confidence building and arms control.

Nevertheless, Europe still has the serious security problems of any of the world's regions both as regards controlling nuclear weapons and with respect to ethnic and nationalist struggles.

What is happening in East Asia, where a focus in the security realm has emerged from an appreciation that the U.S. will continue to reduce its presence in the area, thus providing the opportunity for regional states - such as China and Japan - to emerge as leaders? Can we say that East Asia is less stable and peaceful than Europe, since the region does not have such a developed array of institutions and procedures to cope with conflict? To explain the political stability and explore the key features of the regional security practice in East Asia, I would like to briefly compare its regional security context with that of Europe.

II. Political and Cultural Diversity vs. Homogeneity

One of the stiking aspects of East Asia is its great diversity. Asian countries vary widely in terms of size, level of economic development, sociocultural values, and military capabilities. This religious, political, demographic, and economic diversity of the region reinforces the complexity in the security realm. Unlike in Western Europe, there are also a range of political systems in East Asia, with democratic pluralism in its most developed form only having taken hold in few countries. Economic divergence among the states of the area further complicates the search for a common agenda, and constrains moves towards advanced types of regional economic cooperation.

III. Bilateralism vs. Multilateralism

In East Asia, security relations among nation states are more bilateral, rather than multilateral, with the U.S. playing the central role. As a result, during the Cold War period in particular, alliances in East Asia assumed the familiar "hub and spokes" architecture in which regional states largely dealt with one another on security matters through the Washington hub. Thus, the multilateral approach is a relatively new mode of security relations in the region. Unlike Europe, where multilateral CBMs were embraced during the Cold War, East Asia only began entertaining the notion of multilateral CBMs after the demise of East-West confrontation, albeit with limited tangible results so far. The existing multilateral security mechanisms, encompassing the so-called "minilateral" groupings, to enhance mutual cooperation and trust in the region include : ASEAN Regional Forum(ARF) ; Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific(CSCAP) ; Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue(NEACD) ; Four-Party Talks ; and Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization(KEDO).

IV. Political Fragility and Leadership Transition

A number of the political systems in East Asia, unlike in Europe, have been or are politically fragile. Some leaderships see the political future as an unknown and relatively frightening prospect, others fear for their own political positions in the coming years. Chinese leaders, given the demise of communism globally, the potential for a US-dominated unipolar world, and evidence of domestic unrest, have often reflected these fears.²⁾ The problems associated with leadership transition and the definition of a leadership role could affect not only China but also North Korea and others.

V. Arms Build-up vs. Arms Control

Over the past few years, countries in East Asia, unlike in Europe, have been actively engaged in building up their military forces. Competitive acquisition of arms are being fueled by the obsolescence of existing weapons stock and the general prosperity throughout the region. Above all, they are being stimulated by the strategic uncertainties surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reduction in American deployment in the region. Although the motivations behind the arms build-up in the region are complex and vary according to country, the major causes for the military arms build-up in East Asia today no longer stem from ideological conflicts but rather from growing concern with stategic uncertainty and conflicting national interests, that is, the urge to protect or expand a sphere of influence versus the fear of losing it.

VI. Conclusion : Key Features of East Asian Security Practice

By comparing the East Asian regional security context with the European one, we can draw the following features of the East Asian security practice.

First, the state is the primary security referent for the central decision makers and in most cases for the staatvolk as well. This characteristics stems from the fact that the nation-state is the most valued form of political organization in East Asia.

Second, both the domestic and international arenas may be sources of insecurity for East Asian states. Often the security concerns in these two arenas are interconnected, and the interface is particularly important for understanding the security behavior of certain countries. Internal security concerns frequently affect the international behavior of Asian states. That, however, does not imply that all their international security concerns can be reduced to this consideration.

Third, Asian political leaders began to articulate security in broad terms. The phrase comprehensive security, first coined by Japan in 1980 and used widely in the ASEAN states, is now gaining currency in most other Asian states as well.

The final feature of Asian security practice is its dynamic nature. Security practice in East Asian states has undergone substantial changes in the course of the last three or four decades. Changes have occurred in the referent, the scope, and the approach to the security. In particular, the Asian approach to international security has undergone major changes. The emphasis during the Cold War on alliance and alignment has given way to a greater reliance on national capabilities. Asia has no history of indigenous multilateral security cooperation. Nevertheless cooperative security has become a key component of the national security strategies of many Asian states.

Footnote 

1) William Wallace, "Regionalism in Europe : Model or Exception?" in Louise Fawcett and Andrew Hurrel, eds., Regionalism in World Politics : Regional Organization and International Order(Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 201.

2) Rosemary Foot, "Pacific Asia : The Development of Regional Dialogue," in Fawcett and Hurrel, eds. Regionalism in World Politics, p. 236.