Crisis management and regional security systems in Southeast Asia

Abstract

This thesis examines what the management of crises can reveal about the type and the nature of regional security systems in Southeast Asia. It seeks to evaluate whether or not crisis management conducted by the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) member countries helps to provide ways of conceptualising regional security systems, namely a security community, a balance of power, or a classical concert of powers. While there is a growing body of literature examining the relevance of the first two concepts for explaining the type of regional security system in Southeast Asia, there is a very limited literature that explores whether or not a regional classical concert of powers can provide a relevant explanation. Given that historically the notion of crisis management has been a useful indicator that sheds light the international system, this thesis specifically examines a possible connection between crisis management and security systems in Southeast Asia. The study approaches this task by investigating three case studies: the 1978-1991 Cambodian crisis, the 1999-2002 East Timor crisis and the 2008-2010 Cyclone Nargis crisis. The thesis has two key arguments. First, whether or not the three conceptualisations of regional security systems examined and their variations in the thesis have explanatory value depends on at least two conditions, namely the phase of the crisis - whether it is in an escalating, acute, or de-escalating period - and the nature of the crisis - whether it is traditional or non traditional. Second, the thesis argues that under the same conditions, there are times when the regional security system can best be conceptualised as a 'quasi concert of regional leading powers'. The introduction of this concept contributes to ongoing debate within academic literature about the nature of the regional security systems that operate in Southeast Asia. These two arguments also have additional implications for policy development in Southeast Asia. The first is that the management of crises in Southeast Asia needs to be reviewed and ways found to establish more robust policies and structures for managing crises. ASEAN member states need to set up formal dispute settlement and crisis management mechanisms and the role of the Secretary-General of ASEAN should be strengthened with monitoring and evaluation. The second policy direction that the findings point to is that the burdens of the crisis management should be shared by the regional leading powers and all ASEAN member states. Regional security requires dedicated effort by every Southeast Asian country.