Security Risks and Processes of Regional Security in East Asia

East Asia in the 21st Century

Two contrasting developments are currently to be observed in East Asia. On the one hand, the region is playing an increasingly important role in the global economy. The People's Republic of China has for a number of years been the motor driving this development. Growth and financial centres are developing here in the same way as they did during the Industrial Revolution in Europe. What is happening today will determine whether regions which are still underdeveloped today will be able to tap into this dynamism.  On the other hand, East Asia faces classic security problems. These include the Taiwan question and the conflict between North and South Korea, as well as other unresolved border issues. There are hidden power rivalries - between Japan and China, for example. Increasing numbers of Asian countries are in possession of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Three countries are not signatories of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Countries are also pressing ahead with conventional armament.

Hence, while more and more trading countries are emerging, there remain, at the same time, a multitude of unresolved security problems in the region. Yet economic dynamism needs a climate of certainty and peace. East Asia and the world thus have an existential interest in dealing with these outstanding conflicts.

What strategies are available for tackling these conflicts? Could East Asia make use of the experience of other regions? What conditions need to be in place in order to transform peaceful coexistence into a lasting peace? As a European, I would like to share with you something of Europe's viewpoint on these matters, although in doing so, it is not my intention to eulogize Europe. Europe?s history, after all, is not only about the success story of European integration. It is also a history of devastating wars. Creating a zone of lasting peace in Europe involved a long learning process and wise political decisions.

Regional cooperation: the example of Europe

Europe is today a complex construction characterized by a high level of interdependence, a division of labour, comparable political, social and economic structures, free movement of people, goods and ideas and a common institutional framework. Within this structure confrontational behaviour is not only harmful to others in the group; more importantly, it causes self-harm. Comparable competences and shared knowledge promote a process of exchange and a division of labour in the region. Hence regional cooperation is more than a matter of understanding and cooperation in the area of security policy. Regional arrangements, with corresponding institutions and international rules, in the economic, social and environmental areas, as well as the judicial system and human rights, are equally important.  Observance of procedures, principles and standards was a key factor paving the way for European integration.  The commitment of the states of Europe to the law is at the core of peace in Europe and the basis for stability and reliability. I believe that, where peace is concerned, it does not matter which areas are the first to be involved in the process of communitarization. It is impossible to undo the collective knowledge that cooperation, equitable distribution, democratization and treaties create a structure for peace.

This does not mean, however, that a regional security architecture needs to be defined immediately in the form of permanent institutions; rather, it should be understood as a political process. Institution building can develop slowly, beginning with security-policy dialogues on confidence-building measures. If successful, this process can ultimately transform relations between states. It can also, at the same time, help to bring about internal change within states.

Karl W. Deutsch and the concept of the security community

In terms of form, European integration can be described as a "security community", the term coined by Karl Wolfgang Deutsch in 1957 in his much quoted standard reference work, "Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience, New York 1957". Deutsch fled from the National Socialists in 1938 to settle in the United States, from where he exercised a defining and enduring influence on political science.

According to Karl W. Deutsch, the key characteristics of a "pluralistic security community" are that 

• within its frame, states no longer resort to force as a means of asserting their respective interests (non-violent problem solving),
• the members of the community hold the same basic political values (mutually accepted values),
• the members of the community behave in a way which the other members can predict (dependable expectations).

This has the effect of civilizing dealings between states.

Hence, security communities are close, institutionalized relations between states which are based not only on mutual interests but on mutual sympathies. Their members are bound together by closely interlinked interests, communications and organizations. Security is understood as a collective good. The possibility of armed conflict becomes unthinkable.

In addition to the "pluralistic security community", Deutsch identifies the "amalgamated security community". The difference between the two is that pluralistic security communities consist of several sovereign states, while amalgamated security communities consist of a single state or state-like unit with centralized power. According to this definition, the European Union today is more than a pluralistic security community but not yet an amalgamated security community.

In the context of developing a regional security architecture in Asia, the question that needs to be asked is whether, in order to establish a security community, all the members have to be democracies. Or to put it another way: is a democratic system simply a sufficient but not a necessary condition for forming a security community?

If one applies Deutsch's list of criteria, it is apparent that renunciation of violence, compatibility of values and dependable expectations are sufficient criteria for developing a pluralistic security community. If one looks at the former military dictatorships in Greece and Portugal within NATO, one could even argue that belonging to a security community can actually accelerate the process of social participation. Nevertheless, participation, social justice and legal certainty can promote the process of regional integration, because the socializing function of institutions is all the greater, the more members of the community are democracies. Democracies, therefore, are more likely to form security communities than non-democracies.

Conclusion

At the present time the world order is defined by the USA, which occupies a dominant position economically, culturally and militarily. There is no other country at present which could take over America's role and influence in the world. Multilateralism cannot be an alternative for the USA. Like earlier hegemonic powers, the United States, the land between the Atlantic and Pacific, steers a self-interested course. Its own concept of society is becoming a concept of a world order. This is why the politicians in Washington see the process of European unity as a project for an alternative world order. European integration is a challenge to American claims to leadership. Restraint and the readiness to commit partners to each other through cooperation represent an alternative world order. Hence far-reaching cooperation with other regions would represent an additional challenge to a hegemonic order.

The already intensive economic interlinking of the East Asian economies indicates that deeper interstate cooperation in East Asia is likely. Set against this are the strong reservations regarding sovereignty displayed by some societies in the region, and their nationalist reflexes. East Asia will have to overcome these limitations and adopt a far more receptive attitude to regional and international cooperation. I believe that security communities can make a decisive contribution to stabilizing the emerging international system. Steps towards greater cooperation and confidence building are particularly important in East Asia in view of the territorial and ideological conflicts in the region. The end result of this process, which in Europe lasted for decades, could be the emergence of a regional security community in East Asia. There are shared norms and identities. Regional cooperation continues to offer an opportunity to civilize international politics. It takes courage and wisdom to seize such opportunities.