The Paradox of ASEAN Security Community: Arms Dynamic and the Culture of Militarism in Southeast Asia
| Published date | 01 April 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00208817241298406 |
| Author | Mohamad Rosyidin |
| Date | 01 April 2024 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00208817241298406
International Studies
61(2) 127 –144, 2024
© 2024 Jawaharlal Nehru University
Article reuse guidelines:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/00208817241298406
journals.sagepub.com/home/isq
Research Article
The Paradox of ASEAN
Security Community:
Arms Dynamic and the
Culture of Militarism in
Southeast Asia
Mohamad Rosyidin1
Abstract
It is generally understood that ASEAN has proclaimed itself as a security
community since it has a strong commitment to the culture of peace among its
members. ASEAN remains a community of states that puts national interests on
the top priority of interstate relations in the region. Therefore, ASEAN members
are concerned more about their survival rather than bearing the responsibility
to strengthen ASEAN as an institution. Despite the existence of the culture of
peace within the region, ASEAN is characterized by the acceleration of arms
dynamic in which every country increases its defence budget as well as improves
their military capabilities. Against this backdrop, this article argues that regional
arms dynamic among ASEAN member states would have serious consequences
for the prospect of the ASEAN security community. Instead of fostering the
culture of peace, it would perpetuate the culture of militarism as well as prevent
collective identity building as a prerequisite for establishing a security community.
This tendency creates a paradox that represents ASEAN’s unpreparedness to
establish a long-lasting security community.
Keywords
ASEAN security community, arms dynamic, culture of militarism, collective
identity building
Introduction
ASEAN Political Security Community or simply ASEAN Security Community
(hereinafter ASC) has been at the centre of debate in both academic and policy
realm. The argument on the subject mostly revolves around the conception that
the region has been a hotspot of both inter- and intra-state conflicts since the end
1Department of International Relations, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
Corresponding author:
Mohamad Rosyidin, Jl. Prof. H. Soedarto, SH, Tembalang, Semarang, Central Java 50275, Indonesia.
E-mail: mohamadrosyidin@lecturer.undip.ac.id
128 International Studies 61(2)
of the Second World War through the Cold War. Thus, the discussion of ‘anything’
security could easily escalate into brinkmanship. According to the Bali Concord
II Declaration, the ASC aims to ‘ensure that countries in the region live at peace
with one another and with the world at large in a just, democratic and harmonious
environment’ (ASEAN, 2012). The commitment was then reinforced by the
agreement of the 2015 Kuala Lumpur Declaration which stated that ASC must be
a united, inclusive and resilient community. ASC is expected to be able to
cohesively and responsively resolve various security and peace challenges in the
region. Furthermore, it should be able to play a central role in bringing about
regional and global peace, security and stability (ASEAN, 2015, p. 14).
These objectives are supported by the commitment of ASEAN member states
towards creating the ‘culture of peace’. The main idea of the culture of peace is
centred on ASEAN’s commitment to prioritize a preventive rather than reactive
approach in resolving conflicts in the region, in addition to encouraging shared
values such as peace, harmony, intercultural understanding, the rule of law, good
governance, respect, trust, tolerance, inclusiveness, moderation, social
responsibility and diversity (ASEAN, 2017). This reflects ASEAN’s optimism for
installing and maintaining peace in the region amidst the existence of unfortunate
rivalries among ASEAN members themselves. Weatherbee (2009, p. 127) pointed
out that although ASEAN has lived out its role as an instrument for dispute
settlements for its members, the organization cannot really eliminate the
co-existing competitive nature of interstate relations occurring in the region.
Similarly, Collins (2000, p. 93) argues that the security dilemma in Southeast Asia
remains inescapable characterized by uncertainty, illusory incompatibility and
paradox.
Arms dynamic, among others, is a crucial variable that contributes to the
existence of security dilemma in ASEAN. Arms dynamic is defined as states
policy to improve the quantity and quality of weapons they already possess (see,
e.g., Bitzinger, 2010; Buzan & Herring, 1998). Southeast Asia has become a
market for arms trade. As pointed out by Bitzinger (2015), ‘the Southeast Asian
arms market is becoming increasingly commoditised’. Southeast Asian countries
purchase weapons based mainly on its price, neither brand nor capabilities. As a
result, this pattern ‘could increase regional militaries’ access to advanced military
equipment and technologies’ (Bitzinger, 2015).
Arms dynamic phenomenon in Southeast Asia seems to contradict the ASEAN
commitment to form a security community. On one hand, the community strives
for a regional betterment free of conflict and unrest. On the other hand, the
member states are faced with desires (or compulsion?) to enhance their defence
and military capacity, resulting in complicated intra-regional relations resulting in
arms and military competition. This article aims to explain the impact of arms
dynamic on the prospects for the formation of ASC. Drawing from constructivist
approach with special attention to the concept of collective identity, this article
argues that regional arms dynamic among ASEAN member states would have
negative consequences on the future prospect of the ASC. Specifically, it would
perpetuate the culture of militarism as well as prevent collective identity
To continue reading
Request your trial