| bibo:abstract |
Research Professor, Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security.
-Introduction
The profound changes over the past few years in the international environment shed new light on the security and economic landscape of the Asia-Pacific region. The picture of this landscape, as we move toward the 21st century, is mixed; favorable trends emerge but also ample grounds for uncertainty and insecurity exist.
As to the positive factors, first of all, the end of the Cold War has greatly improved the security climate in the region―the immense ideological barrier that gave rise to distrust and hostility among states for decades has collapsed. While this does not necessarily mean that peace has finally arrived, the improvements in relations between states in the region clearly provide new opportunities for the future.
There is, in addition, growing economic interdependence and an emerging chain of regional economic communities in the Asia-Pacific region. The aspiration of virtually all Asian countries with accelerating their economic development and enhancing their international competitiveness has encouraged them to seek markets, capital, and technology as broadly as possible, and thus to promote cooperative commercial relations with their neighbors. This has also contributed to a reduction of tensions; a normalization of relations, especially between Seoul and Moscow, as well as Seoul and Beijing, and improvement of relations between mainland China and Taiwan.
There are, of course, concerns for insecurity and uncertainty. While the end of the Cold War has certainly improved the world's security environment, peace is still fragile and elusive in Asia, where Cold War sentiments linger, and regional states retain deep-rooted mistrust and animosity toward their neighbors. Unsettled territorial disputes, military imbalance, regional rivalries and other sources of concern have kept countries on their guard. Moreover, there is the perceived draw-down of the U.S. military presence in the region and the perceived need to prepare for possible, resulting uncertainties. Many countries believe that any diminution of the U.S. commitment to regional stability could create a security vacuum that other major players would be tempted or compelled to fill. A regional arms race and a climate of confrontation is likely to occur in the absence of the unique stabilizing role that the U.S. has provided. In fact, there is currently a "disturbing trend towards a regional arms build-up" in Asia.
Furthermore, North Korea's drive to become an indigenous nuclear power, uncertainties that might arise from leadership transition in China, and Russia's political and economic difficulties caused by the attempt to transform its system could be additional sources of regional instability in Asia and the Pacific.
Recognizing these circumstances, many governments and policy analysts in the region argued that the Asia-Pacific nations need to develop a new regional order to make the region more stable and prosperous. More specifically, they have called for a multilateral approach to build up peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. Now an international regime built on commonly understood rules of state behavior is a concept worthy of serious exploration. In Asia and the Pacific, especially Northeast Asia, the concept of multilateral security cooperation could have enormous rewards if it could be put into practice.
This paper attempts to inquire into the rationale for a multilateral security regime in the Northeast Asian region, examine the current regional trends and movements for establishing such a regime, identify the major elements and goals to be incorporated into any arrangements in the region, and explore Korea's working principles in pursuing this type of regime in Northeast Asia.
-Rationale for Multilateral Security Regime in Northeast Asia
The current increasing advocacy for a multilateral security regime in Northeast Asia can be explained in various ways. First, there is a growing need to reduce political uncertainties in the post-Cold War era. Given the lack of any multilateral institutions in Northeast Asia unlike in Europe, it is observed that greater independence from old restraints imposed by Cold War bipolarity could lead to a dangerous regional power vacuum. This, in turn, could result in severe rivalry between potential power contenders for regional military predominance. They may seek more independent security postures, and incur greater defense expenditures, perhaps based on an assumption that the utility of continued alliance affiliation with extra-regional powers may increasingly diminish unless such alliances can be adapted to suit the changing local security situation.
Indeed, the two regional arch-rivalries in Northeast Asia―China and Japan―appear to be engaged in accelerating military arms proliferation, and this acceleration of regional arms build-up is made more worrisome by the absence of any multilateral security arrangements. Causes for such military arms build-up in the region today no longer stem from ideological conflicts but rather from growing concern with strategic uncertainty and differing national interests, that is, the urge to protect or expand a sphere of influence and the fear of losing it. In order to avoid or extinguish the risks of this type of arms races in the region, it is argued that the need for multilateral security consultations can no longer be neglected and the time has come to craft some sort of multilateral security framework as a measure to enhance confidence, dissipate possible tensions and reduce political uncertainties.
Second, another major reason for the increasing advocacy for a multilateral security regime in the region is the need to meet the broadening concept of security itself and the related growing awareness of the unconventional threats to security in the region. In Northeast Asia, military security has not vanished as a key element of regional security. However, the concept of regional security is expanded to include economic and environmental security, as opposed to being merely the underpinning of traditional security concerns.
One set of such security concerns includes the various forms of environmental problems, such as the pollution of the atmosphere and the oceans, the excessive fishing in the North Pacific, and the dangers of climatic change. Another involves the multifarious forms of transnational criminal activity, including drug trafficking, terrorism and piracy. Still another could be generated by the controlled movement of people across international frontiers, occasioned by civil war, poverty, political repression, or natural disaster.
Governments cannot solve these problems through unilateral means. Moreover, the existing bilateral relations in the region are not sufficient to solve problems. They can be fully prevented or resolved with effective international cooperation among nations. In this context, meeting the unconventional threats to security in the post-Cold War era requires institutional innovations and the need for a multilateral security regime in the region is emphasized.
Thirdly, in the post-Cold War era, there is a growing need to provide a favorable environment to sustain regional economic growth. Over the past few decades, the East Asian economics have grown more rapidly for longer than any other economics in world history. As a result, East Asia, including Northeast Asia, has become the main source of dynamism in international trade and the largest source of surplus savings for international investment. However, political uncertainties and the current trend of extensive military spending in the Northeast Asian countries could erode the underlying economic capabilities and the full potential dynamism in the region. Hence, there is a need for dialogue and cooperation in order to maintain regional stability and facilitate the economic developments of the region.
Speedy economic development is also a precondition for a stable and peaceful region. The maintenance of such development would become the basis for the countries in the region to promote cooperative and better political relationships.
Finally, the new set of facts generated by the end of the Cold War―The dissolution of the Soviet Union and lifting of the common threat―and advantages of the multilateral dialogue regime itself raises the need for multilateral security cooperation in the region. As mentioned earlier, with the end of the Cold War, the immense ideological barrier that gave rise to distrust and hostility among states for decades has collapsed. This new situation means that all the regional states in Northeast Asia can cooperate with each other in promoting peace and security in ways that were not possible while the Cold War existed.
There are also advantages for each of the major powers of the Northeast Asian region in becoming a part of a multilateral security mechanism. For the United States, for instance, it would institutionalize the American presence in East Asia. It is not necessary to postulate a relative decline in American power in the region to see this as an advantage. In fact, a multilateral mechanism is not likely to be established in the absence of assertive and creative American diplomacy. The advantage is not that it postpones retreat, but rather that it offers an additional method of engagement and a forum for managing a peaceful transition in Northeast Asia.
For Korea, South and North, to be a participant in a multilateral security mechanism could contribute to establishing a solid peaceful system on the peninsula. More specifically, the agreements that South Korea and North Korea have adopted―such as the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-Aggression, and Exchange and Cooperation―could be reinforced within a multilateral framework. In the long term, it can help bring about a favorable environment for peaceful unification of the peninsula.
-Major Elements and Goals of Multilateral Security Regime
The multilateral approach to the security of Northeast Asia is intended to promote cooperative security in the region. The term "multilateral" can be defined as any arrangement, formal or informal, that encourages or requires a set of nations to consult or take actions together within an international system. What distinguishes the multilateral form from other forms is that it coordinates behavior among three or more states on the basis of generalized principles of conduct.
The category of issues or actions under discussion now, of course, is related to security. As mentioned earlier, "security" has many dimensions, particularly economic and environmental in addition to the military one. Hence, the term is not primarily limited to those matters where military power, or force or the threat of force are relevant factors. In this context, the multilateral approach to the security of Northeast Asia deals with a greater diversity of security policies and predicaments or challenges that the regional states may face in common.
In addition, the multilateral approach to regional security differs from the traditional idea of collective security as preventive medicine differs from acute care. It is designed to ease tensions before they result in conflict―or if conflict breaks out, to act swiftly to contain it and resolve its underlying causes. To prevent disputes from arising between states and to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts, many dialogues and consultations are needed. The multilateral approach to regional security then can be defined as collaborative efforts by the members of an international community to enhance security by attempting to resolve existing disputes, forestall potential conflicts and restrict destabilizing deployments of military forces and weapons. This multilateral approach to regional security can help to create an international regime―a set of principles, norms and patterns of behavior that can serve to regulate relations within a system of states. (Re.*) In the case of a multilateral security regime in Northeast Asia, the following four basic elements of the security relationships could be codified in the early stage, as suggested by Ambassador James E. Goodby, the former head of the U.S. delegation to the Stockholm Conference on Disarmament in Europe. They are: (1) seek to reconcile differences through negotiations and mutual consultations; (2) communicate regularly and clearly on all matters having a bearing on security in the region; (3) exercise restraint in the pursuit of those national interests that impinge on the interests of others; and (4) use force only in self-defense.
(Remark *) The international regime itself is defined as "a set of explicit and/or implicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given area of international relations." See Stephen D. Krasner, "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences," International Organization 36 (Spring 1982), p. 185.
National behavior conditioned and guided by these four principles would not endure for long unless reinforced by similar behavior by other members of the system. But an established pattern of adherence to a set of commonly understood norms would make it easier for regional states within the system to cooperate rather than act in completely unilateral ways.
If these principles are to become operational as a functioning regime, a mechanism could be created to facilitate transparency and accommodation within a system of states. Such a mechanism, as seen in the European experiences, might be multilateral ministerial meetings, joint military commissions, and meetings of officials and experts―all conducted on some frequent and regular schedule. In addition, a regime can be strengthened by a set of specific obligations designed to encourage transparency and habits of cooperation. These can be requirements, for example, to provide advance notice of military activities, to exchange information about military deployments and defence expenditures, or to act in accordance with agreed international rules for operations of military forces. This process can usefully encourage nations to share information, convey intentions, ease tensions, resolve disputes and foster confidence. Moreover, it can provide a basis for more sophisticated arms control measures including arms reduction for regional states.
-Korea's Approach to Multilateral Security Regime: Four Working Principles
The idea of establishing new multilateral mechanisms to manage security problems and prevent other emerging concerns in East Asia is now receiving a wide support among nations in the region. For instance, the United States regards developing multilateral forums for security consultations as one of the major goals for American policy in Asia and the Pacific, which was reiterated by President Clinton in his recent speech in Seoul on the New Pacific Community. In addition, many other countries believe that some form of a multilateral security forum should be introduced in the Asia-Pacific region to meet multiple threats and opportunities.
In fact, a multilateral security dialogue encompassing the entire Asia-Pacific region has already begun at the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference (PMC). In addition to increased security consultations in its own framework since 1990, the organization has recently decided to set up an 18-member forum―namely, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)―to promote consultations on regional political and security issues. The forum members will include ASEAN and its seven main dialogue partners―the U.S., Japan, Canada, the European Community, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand―plus Russia, China, Vietnam, Laos and Papua New Guinea. The forum is expected to provide a mechanism not just for discussing problems but also for managing potential and actual crises.
In addition to this official and governmental track, a non-governmental organization to address security cooperation in the region, known as Council for Security Cooperation in Asia-Pacific (CSCAP), has recently been established. The members of the organization include a number of key policy research institutions across the Pacific. (Re.*) The organization, as a recognized forum for quasi-official dialogue on security problems in the region, is expected to contribute to the efforts towards regional confidence building and enhancing regional security through dialogues, consultation and cooperation.
(Remark *) The founding members of CSCAP include, for instance, the Seoul Forum for International Affairs, the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Pacific Forum/CSIS(U.S.A.) and the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Malaysia).
Apart from these broad frameworks like ARF and CSCAP, there has also been some consideration to applying concepts of the multilateral security regime to such sub-regions as Northeast and Southeast Asia, through a combination of preventive diplomacy, confidence-building measures, arms control, and dialogue on military issues. For instance, the Southeast Asian countries have already been successful with their multilateral security cooperation. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which was signed in 1975 among ASEAN countries is gaining wider adherence within the region. The developments regarding Cambodia and the South China Sea are also very encouraging. As recently as last August, a New Southeast Asian Security Initiative was launched to nurture habits of consultation and cooperation among states in this region.
For its part, given the specific security equation, the Northeast Asian region could also consider a long-term vision of devising a mechanism of security cooperation, which will promote, among others, confidence building, arms control and dispute settlement. The security forum for the North-east Asia region, if inaugurated, could help to accommodate the rising power of China and Japan while integrating Russia and eventually a reunited Korea in the regional security order.
Recognizing this, the Republic of Korea is currently taking the initiative of introducing security dialogue, called the 'Mini-CSCE-like framework,' into the Northeast Asian region. The Northeast Asian security dialogue forum would complement and reinforce the Asia-Pacific region-wide multilateral security regime. In pursuing the forum, the following four working principles should be emphasized.
First, it is not too much to say that any multilateral security forum in Northeast Asia should not undermine or erode the existing bilateral relations in the region. To introduce multilateral dialogue in security matters is not necessarily to deny the role of the existing bilateral arrangements in the region. Certainly it will not be a substitute for close bilateral relations where they exist.
Second, emphasis must be placed on a gradual or step-by-step approach in pursuing the forum. The Northeast Asia region lacks a habit of dialogue among states. Hence, it is important to nurture habits of consultation and cooperation gradually among regional states and more emphasis should be placed on the development of less ambitious measures in the early stage to increase confidence among mistrustful governments. For example, the process could start with efforts to increase transparency, by exchanging information on defense budgets and military deployments, in the hope that each nation can reassure its neighbors of its capabilities and intentions. This could then lead to a consideration of more sophisticated arms control measures, such as a prior notification of military exercise and force reduction, building on the previous work done at the lower level.
Third, in addition to official or governmental talks, there is a need for unofficial channels of dialogue on security―known as "track two" diplomacy―whereby experts from the academic, governmental, official, non-governmental, and private communities can meet, each in their individual capacity. While the track two process is not unique to the multilateral approach to regional security, through this process both fundamental issues and emerging problems can be addressed more frankly and more tentatively than is possible in official forums.
Finally, there should be some consideration of the principle of inclusiveness on the issue of membership. Cooperative security, the subject which the multilateral approach to regional security intends explicitly to promote, is not a priori restrictive in membership. Hence, the forum should involve all the members of the region as much as possible. However, this principle must be flexible in practice. That is to say, in the first stage, a multilateral forum can be established without the participation of certain countries that show negative responses. Such nations can join the forum later.
-Conclusions
In all its dimensions, the multilateral approach to regional security will be high on the agenda in Northeast Asia as we move toward the twenty-first century. The establishment of a multilateral security forum in the region will greatly contribute to the building of an international regime based on the principles of consultation, transparency and cooperation. It will also reinforce and complement the existing bilateral, state-to-state and people-to-people relations.
In pursuing such a forum, however, there exist a number of stumbling blocks. The lack of the habit of dialogue itself and diversities in history and political culture among regional states are likely to be the major obstacles in actualization of the forum. Moreover, the ambiguous and skeptical attitudes of certain countries, including North Korea, could be additional obstacles in that direction. They may believe that the principles of transparency, consultation and cooperation associated with multilateral approach to regional security could prove intrusive.
At this moment, it appears that the regional movement toward a multilateral security regime is compelling. As mentioned earlier, a multilateral security dialogue encompassing the entire Asia-Pacific region has already begun at the ASEAN-PMC. Hence, what we need at this stage is to formalize an official security forum at the Northeast Asian sub-regional level through the already functioning ASEAN-PMC and identify realistic confidence and security building measures (CSBMs) to nurture the habit of cooperation. Korea, which stands at the center of Northeast Asia, can play a vital role in the region's new arrangements.
Source Materials
-OPENING STATEMENT BY HIS EXCELLENCY DR. HAN SUNG-JOO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, AT THE ASEAN POS...
OPENING STATEMENT BY HIS EXCELLENCY DR. HAN SUNG-JOO, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, AT THE ASEAN POST MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE (6+7 SESSION)
26 July 1993
Singapore
Mr. Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a pleasure and honour for me to participate for the first time in the Post Ministerial Conference of ASEAN. Korea's New Diplomacy attaches great importance to its relationship with ASEAN. During its twenty-six years of existence, ASEAN has made itself indispensable for the security and prosperity not only of Southeast Asia but of the entire Asia-Pacific region as well.
ASEAN was created in 1967. In 1979, ASEAN launched its Post Ministerial Conference. Another dozen years later, ASEAN significantly upgraded the PMC mechanism by introducing security agenda. ASEAN has also set the goal of realizing a Free Trade Area by early next century. Korea hopes that this goal will be successfully achieved. This means that ASEAN will be making a significant leap in regional cooperation about every decade.
Since last year's PMC in Manila, the trends of openness and reconciliation continue to spread. Many countries around the globe have been continuing their reforms towards democracy and market economy. The trends towards paying greater attention to problems of democracy were reinforced by such events as the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna last month.
At the same time, we are witnessing new developments: On the political and security front, the tragic situation in Bosnia has aggravated; the situation in Somalia is deteriorating; North Korea's nuclear question is yet to be resolved; the peace process in Cambodia has made a significant progress. On the economic front, the Uruguay Round is still undergoing in spite of seven-year negotiations; the Single European Market (SEM) was launched this year; the expanded NAFTA will come into effect next year.
Interdependence
Amidst these developments, a new world order of the post-Cold War era is relentlessly taking shape. In recognition of this change, the Korean government has adopted regional cooperation as one of the most important themes of its international relations.
The new international environment on the eve of what we might call the Pacific Era embodies several characteristics, the most important of which is growing interdependence among nations. This interdependence is a completely new phenomenon enabling us to actively construct a new world order rather than merely adapt to it.
The world and especially the countries of the Pacific will have to make the most of this rare opportunity for the creation of a new world order. Lest such an opportunity should slip away through our fingers, we have to orient our national and regional strategies to the emerging new order. In this context, the most important task before us seems to be the promotion of multilateral security and economic frameworks in the Asia-Pacific region.
Over the long run, just as European nations enhanced their security, economic prosperity and democracy through the process of political and economic integration, Pacific countries could also secure peace and prosperity through multilateral processes such as the ASEAN-PMC.
In this regard, the meeting that we had yesterday evening with the foreign ministers of China, Russia, Vietnam, Laos, and Papua New Guinea bears particular significance. Korea welcomes and commends ASEAN's initiative to invite them and hopes that such widening of the process will continue.
Multilateral Security Framework
Despite the passing of the global Cold War, indeed perhaps because of it, the regional security situation has become even more fluid and complex. Until now, bilateral arrangements have played an important role in the security of the Asia-Pacific region. Although such a network will continue to be essential for a considerable period of time, the changing security environment raises the need for multilateral dialogue and cooperation to complement bilateral arrangements.
A multilateral security dialogue encompassing the entire Asia-Pacific region has already begun at the ASEAN-PMC. At the same time, the possibility of multilateral security cooperation in such subregions as Northeast and Southeast Asia is under careful but active consideration.
What the ASEAN-PMC process illustrates is the willingness of the participating countries to engage in a multilateral security dialogue. Last year, Korea joined the rest of the dialogue partners in commending ASEAN for initiating the multilateral security dialogue within the PMC framework. This may, ASEAN took another concrete step by convening the PMC Senior Officials' Meeting here in Singapore. Moreover, ASEAN has drawn its guests and observers closer to PMC. Korea welcomes continuing initiatives of ASEAN in promoting multilateral security dialogue and will actively participate in the process.
For its part, given the specific security equation, the Northeast Asian region could also consider a long-term vision of devising a mechanism of security cooperation, which will promote, among others, confidence building, arms control and dispute settlement.
The Southeast Asian countries have already been successful with their multilateral security cooperation. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which was signed in 1975 among ASEAN countries is gaining wider adherence within the region. The developments regarding Cambodia and South China Sea are also very encouraging.
Regional Security Issues
Korea welcomes the election held in Cambodia last May and the on-going process of establishing a new government. The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) played a vital role in successfully supervising the overall peace process of Cambodia. The United Nations, thus, has proved itself to be an integral part of the emerging new international order. Cambodia's integration to the regional political and economic order, along with its progress in domestic stability, would contribute to the peace and prosperity of the region. This will mark the culmination of ASEAN's valuable contribution to the Cambodian question.
The "Declaration on the South China Sea" adopted at last year's ASEAN Ministerial Meeting is an excellent example of preventive diplomacy. Korea hopes that Indonesia's mediating role and the cooperation of other countries concerned will bring about further success for the benefit of the entire East Asian region.
Now, let me bring your attention to the most alarming issue in the post-Cold War security environment, namely, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although the signing process of the Chemical Weapons Convention is certainly a positive and encouraging development, it still has a long way to go to be an effective mechanism to control the spread of chemical weapons. More significantly, the specter of nuclear proliferation along with delivery vehicles is looming large over us.
In particular, we cannot help but raise the North Korean nuclear question. This problem is posing a serious threat not only to the Korean people but also to the region and the world as a whole. Mindful of this fact, Korea has been taking every possible measure to resolve this critical issue in a peaceful manner. We have done so in close cooperation with other countries and relevant international institutions such as the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council.
So far, we have been successful only to the point of having made Pyongyang remain in the NPT regime and agree to enter into negotiation with IAEA to implement full safeguard requirements. North Korea must meet its nuclear safeguard requirements and cooperate in removing suspicions surrounding its nuclear program.
The ultimate solution to this issue can come only with North Korea's joining in the international trends of reconciliation and cooperation. This is precisely why we have to induce North Korea to participate in the regional and international order. Seen from this perspective, a successful international effort to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue is essential in building an enduring regional order.
Economic Order
The end of the Cold War has compelled nations to shift their focus from security to economy. At the same time, this shift of focus has raised concerns over the deepening economic competition among countries and regions.
Today's world economic environment is characterized by parallel progress in both globalism and regionalism. The success or failure of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations will have a decisive impact on world economy. With the Pacific Era on the horizon, the future direction of the economic order in the Asia-Pacific region will depend heavily on the outcome of these negotiations. The cornerstone of GATT, namely, non-discrimination can be kept alive only by globalism. And the cornerstone of the Pacific Era, namely, interdependence can best be enhanced by open regionalism.
As we look into the nature of the Pacific economy, we are struck by the enormity of the size as well as by the strong intra-regional interdependence. The economies of the Asia-Pacific region assume approximately 50% of world's GNP and 40% of global trade. Moreover, whereas intra-regional trade was only 57% in 1980, it grew to 69% ten years later.
Among the various forms of intra-regional interdependence, that between the two shores of the Pacific, namely, East Asia and North America, is the most significant. Trans-Pacific trade surpassed trans-Atlantic trade some ten years ago. And by the century's end, the ratio is expected to become two to one.
As the only intergovernmental organization encompassing the entire Asia-Pacific region, APEC is the very mechanism that will contribute decisively to the promotion and productive management of the trans-Pacific interdepe
|
