THE HABIBIE CENTER
DISCUSSION REPORT
No. 10/March 2015
21 st TALKING ASEAN
Addressing Non-Traditional
Security Issues in Southeast Asia:
Lessons From ASEAN-EU Cooperation
The Habibie Center, Jakarta
March 30, 2015
INTRODUCTION
JAKARTA – On Monday, 30 March 2015, The Habibie
Center held a Talking ASEAN dialogue entitled
“Addressing Non-Traditional Security Issues in
Southeast Asia: Lessons from ASEAN-EU Cooperation“at
The Habibie Center Building in Jakarta. This edition of
Talking ASEAN featuredDr. Felix Heiduk (Researcher,
German Insitute for International and Security Affairs
– Stiftung Wissenschaft Und Politik), Dr. Kusnanto
Anggoro (Lecturer, Indonesia Defense University),
Iis Gindarsah (Researcher, Centre for Strategic and
International Studies – CSIS), Dr. Ming-Hsien Wong
(Chair of Graduate Institute of International Affairs
and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University) as resource
persons with Mr. AIbrahim Almuttaqi (Head of ASEAN
Studies Program, The Habibie Center) as the moderator.
The objectives of this Talking ASEAN were to:(a)
highlight what key steps have been taken by ASEAN and
the EU to jointly address the non-traditional security
threat of terrorism, both in the form of declarations
and practical measures; (b)discuss the success and
failures of this cooperation and to identify what are the
main opportunities presented and challenges faced;
(c) explore in more detail the reasons behind why not
ASEAN-EU cooperation to jointly address the nontraditional security threat of terrorism has not gone
beyond rhetorical declarations, and actions beyond
various workshops and joint seminars; (d) produce
possible recommendations to enhance ASEAN-EU
cooperation to address the non-traditional security
threat of terrorism;and (e) discuss other forms of nontraditional security threats that are also interlinked
with the issue of terrorism.
This discussion report summarizes the key points
of each speaker as well as the question and answer
session that followed.
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Dr. Felix Heiduk
Heiduk adding that a stronger insitutional design
for the ASEAN Secretariat was needed. Third, was
the relative power distribution, either in terms
of among ASEAN member-states themselves to
cooperate with EU, or in terms of EU cooperation
to ASEAN. In this framework, Dr. Heiduk argued
that the bilateral ties between respective ASEANmember states to EU member-states was more
significant than the organizational relationship.
Fourth, Dr. Heiduk underlined the similarities or
disimilarities in the EU as an institution with other
states or regional organization. According to this
point, Dr. Heiduk mentioned that there were two
assumptions, where on the one hand EU become
inward looking in judging similarities between EU
institution to ASEAN and on the other hand, EU
sees themselves as policy innovator and ASEAN
was merely the policy-tacker.
Dr. Felix Heiduk - Researcher, German Insitute for International and Security
Affairs – Stiftung Wissenschaft Und Politik
Dr. Felix Heiduk was the first to speak at the
dialogue. He began by elaborating on the various
discourse related to the prospects and limitations
of ASEAN and European Union (EU) Cooperation
in Non-Tradition Security issues. He mentioned
the background of the EU’s perspective on NonTraditional Security, describing the Post-Cold War
era as being the main driver. Dr. Heiduk stated that
the emergence of Non-Traditional Security issues
after the Cold War has made the EU increase its
cooperation with other states and other regional
organizations in the world. Interestingly, he noted
that the EU’s cooperation sought to also externalize
its own norms and governance-model to its
respective partners, such as the idea of ‘Human
Security’ and ‘Right-based Approach’.
Dr. Heiduk then raised a number of critical
questions surrounding the ASEAN-EU Cooperation,
especially whether the EU was a model for
ASEAN. More specifically, he asked why ASEANEU cooperation had seen very little influence in
terms of policy transfer from the EU to ASEAN.
In trying to answer these questions, Dr. Heiduk
pointed out the four traditional arguments for
the EU’s failure to influence ASEAN. First, there
was only a small degree of Europeanization that
led to the limited influence the EU had in ASEAN.
Second, ASEAN did not not have the suprastructure
institutions that the EU has in Brussels, with Dr.
Despite the four arguments that had been
highlighted by Dr. Heiduk to explainthe success
and failure of the ASEAN-EU cooperation, he
argued that the externalization of EU norms will
always be impossible to be implemented in ASEAN.
He further argued that the adoption of the ASEAN
Way by the Southeast Asian regional organization
as a long-standing norms and paradigm for its
member-states continues to be the main constraint
in developing ASEAN-EU Cooperation. He believed
that ASEAN-EU cooperation in the future will
remain constrained if the ASEAN Way was still
the main norm.Dr. Heiduk supported this main
argument by pointing to a number of facts and data
which showed that the ASEAN-EU Cooperation in
the field of addressing Non Traditional Security
issues was limited to only rhetorical declarations
and meetings.
“The adoption of the ASEAN Way by the
Southeast Asian regional organization
as a long-standing norms and paradigm
for its member-states continues to
be the main constraint in developing
ASEAN-EU Cooperation (in addressing
non-traditional security threats).”
1
- Dr. Felix Heiduk -
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Dr. Kusnanto Anggoro
development issues or security issues. For instances,
he highlighted the cases of climate change issues,
organized crimes, and even terrorism as issues that
were often cited as trans-sovereignty and transboundary problems within the non-traditional
security issues. Nonetheless he believed that within
the ASEAN-EU cooperation, the nature of nontraditional security issues would be be centered on
terrorism and money laundring.
However, the diffussion of norms between ASEAN
and EU converged around three main ideas, namely
resilience, governance, and prevention. Dr. Anggoro
described that the three main ideas convergence
of ASEAN and EU would contribute to bringing
effectiveness to the ASEAN-EU relationship. This was
Dr. Kusnanto Anggoro - Lecturer, Indonesia Defense University
despite the various dynamics related to the bilateral
relationship between ASEAN member-states and
Dr. Kusnanto Anggoro was the second to speak at the EU member-states. He specifically mentioned the
dialogue. He started his presentation with a general importance of bilateralism because of three motives,
overview of non-traditional issues within the such as motives of cooperation, globalizing ASEANASEAN-EU cooperation framework. He noted that EU model of cooperation as between regional
both regional organizations respected each other’s organizational cooperation model, and historical
values when addressing the issues, eventhough the motives.
EU hadseveral advantages in terms of experiences
and experties to tackle non-traditional security In his conclusion, Dr. Anggoro pointed out that along
issues. However, he mentioned that the EU saw the history of ASEAN-EU cooperation, ideas and
ASEAN as a strategic partner beyond its geographical norms had seen convergence. Yet, the emulation of
position, whereas ASEAN saw the EU as the strategic structure and decision making process remained
partners for regional balancing in its region which within each national boundaries of ASEAN memberstates. To finish his presentation, he suggested to Dr.
was now facing a changing strategic environment.
Felix Heidukto look at comparing the Nurenberg
Interestingly, Dr. Anggoro argued that he was Declaration 2007 and Bandar Sri Begawan
skeptical towards the prospect of ASEAN-EU Declration 2013.
Cooperation despite there being regular high-level
“The diffusion of norms between ASEAN
meetingsthat oftenly produced idea convergence
and EU converge around three main
– namely to contribute significantly to their future
relations. He also mentioned that the idea of
ideas, namely resilience, governance, and
Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) that was now
prevention…these would contribute to
relatively taking place in ASEAN as the main corner
bringing effectiveness to the ASEAN-EU
stone for security issues was derived from European
relationship despite the various dynamics
ideas. In other words, European influence in ASEAN
did exist.
related to the bilateral relationship
between ASEAN member-states and EU
member-states.”
Dr. Anggoro went on to scrutinize the notion that
non-traditional security was a trans-sovereignty
issues. He argued that non-traditional security to
some extent could hardly be dichotomized either as
- Dr. Kusnanto Anggoro 2
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Iis Gindarsah
affected the great power relations between China
and US in the region. His point of view was that the
non-traditional security issues in Southeast Asia
could become the traditional security issues. In
other words, he wanted to show that the regional
discourse of security studies had also shifted in
Southeast Asia.
Another reason was the democratization process in
Southeast Asia which had become a non-traditional
security issues. He argued that the process of
democratization was growing since the 1990s.
Unfortunately, no ASEAN member-states had
emerged as truly democratic countries. However,
Mr. Gindarsah optimistically assessed that the
ASEAN member-states such as Indonesia, Malaysia,
Singapore, Philippines, and Thailand will shift
their intention priority to democracy. According
to Mr. Gindarsah, this kind of non-traditional
security issues was also relevantto constructing the
Southeast Asia security agenda.
Iis Gindarsah - Researcher, Centre for Strategic and International Studies – CSIS
Mr. Iis Gindarsah as the military experts from CSIS –
Jakarta discussed the general point of view for nontraditional security issues in ASEAN. He elaborated
his perspective that non-traditional security
issues in ASEAN had gained prominence in recent
years, consequentially making the Southeast Asian
region to become of more strategic importance.
Nevertheless, he added that it only 30% ASEAN
Documents were related to non-traditional security
issues, while the rest 70% were related to more
traditional security areas.As a matter of fact, the
ASEAN Documents that has been analysed to
provide a deeper understanding for non-traditional
security issues was not entirely complete because
many ASEAN documents also covered significant
cross-cutting issues mingled among development
issues.
In his final remarks, Mr. Gindarsah explained
another example on environmental issues, whenhe
mentioned the very significant role played by Civil
Society Organizationsin advocating the issue. He
further argued that almost all of non-traditional
security issues in Southeast Asia was influenced by
the idea of human security and the responsibility to
protect.
“Non-traditional security issues in
ASEAN have gained prominence in
recent years, consequentially making
the Southeast Asian region to become
of strategic importance….30% ASEAN
Documents were related to nontraditional security issues”
Furthermore, Mr. Gindarsah citedseveral reasons
why Southeast Asia was now becoming a strategic
region. On the climate change issues, he mentioned
that there were some research that found the
influence of climate change in Southeast Asia
- Iis Gindarsah -
3
SPEAKERS’ PRESENTATION
Dr. Ming-Hsien Wong
threat, aside from the one posed by China. In the
context of mechanism, Dr. Wong mentioned Taiwan’s
National Security Council which has five main
areas of security prioritized by Taiwan: traditional
security, non-traditional security, common security,
cooperative security, and comprehensive security. In
this light, Taiwan has committed to contributing to
the international community by acting as the cultural
promoter, humanitarian aid, and peacemaker.
Focusing on the role of ASEAN in addressing the
non-traditional security issues, Dr. Wong expressed
his concern that the multilateralism cooperation in
Southeast Asia and East Asia will be critical steps. In
particular, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and East
Asia Summit (EAS) were mentioned. Also included
were Track II security processes which had grown
in relevance. Besides, the bilateral agreements in
addressing the non-traditional security can be used
to strengthen the regional security architecture.
In his final remarks, Dr. Wong mentioned Taiwan’s
experience in managing the security issues that could
be a model for regional security. He underlined that
Taiwan’s homeland security concept was derived
from non-traditional security theory.
Dr. Ming-Hsien Wong - Chair of Graduate Institute of International Affairs and
Strategic Studies, Tamkang University
“Multilateralism cooperation will be
critical steps for ASEAN to address
non-traditional security issues… Track
II security processes have also grown
in relevance”
As the last speaker, Dr. Wong discussed the nontraditional security issues based on Taiwan’s
perspective. He raised important questions about
how Taiwan defined the non-traditional security;
how to deal with them; and what mechanisms could
be used for non-traditional security issues?
Dr. Wong argued that non-traditional security issues
for Taiwan includes transnational crime, terrorism,
disaster relief, information security, climate change,
public health epidemics, and even the maritime
issues. He further argued that all of Taiwan’s nontraditional security concerns could affect the
regional security architecture in Southeast Asia
and East Asia. In his argument, he endorsed the use
of the Copenghagen school of thought concerning
‘securitization’ that focused on existential threat. Dr.
Wong further elaborated that Taiwan even treated
non-traditional security issues as an existential
- Dr. Ming-Hsien Wong -
4
Q&A SESSION
Comment No. 2
What do you think about the ASEAN-Europe
Meeting (ASEM) as the norms exercise for EU
to ASEAN? What is the motives for ASEM, is it
for the norms dissemination of security issues?
Comment No. 3
What do you think about the security
development in Russia, particularly to the arms
sales and embargo that affect EU?
Dr. Felix Heiduk
In responding to all the questions, Dr. Heiduk
argued that the threat perception of the EU and
its member-states was different from those
of ASEAN member-states because the latter
perceived threats more at the bilateral and
regional level.
Regarding to the ASEAN-Europe Meeting, Dr.
Heiduk explained that there are reasons for the
ASEAN-Europe meeting, such as transferring
norms so the EU can be seen as the role
model of regional organizations. However, the
political-economy motives was very strongly
sensed as the factor for why the EU wanted to
engage with Southeast Asia. He highlighted the
fact that the EU was a major arms dealer for
Southeast Asian countries as well as the need
to protect EU Citizens in Southeast Asia region.
A. Ibrahim Almuttaqi - Head of ASEAN Studies Program, The Habibie Center,
moderates the Q&A session.
Comment No. 1
In the new strategic environment in Southeast
Asia, there are significant differences between
terrorism, extremism, and radicalism. For
instance, Indonesia in ASEAN is one of the the
primary country that focuses on terrorism
issues while in Europe the threat is also same.
Threfore, I foresee that there will be a common
ground for ASEAN and EU cooperation,
particularly in the terrorism, extremism, and
radicalism area. Nevertheless, it would be very
hard to find common ground between ASEAN
and EU in other non-traditional security issues
such as disaster relief or resource management.
What is your opinion on this?
For the arms embargo issues, Dr. Heiduk
expressed his apology that he was not a Russian
expert. However, it should be noted that the
issues was always related to the Ukrainian issue
and European security.
Dr. Kusnanto Anggoro
Responding to Comment 1, Dr. Anggoro argued
that the EU would be more thanplease to
stand on the common ground for ASEAN-EU
cooperation on counter-terrorism, extremism
and radicalism, due to the similarities of security
perception for both regional organizations.
5
Q&A SESSION
Nevertheless, he added, that it will be
impossible to stand on the common ground for
every non-traditional security issues because
the geographical constraintin Southeast
Asia and Europe was different. Dr. Anggoro
reiterated that the cooperative security matters
as the foundation for ASEAN-EU Cooperation.
As such ASEAN and the EU had to agree on
agreements that discuss the issues of terrorism,
extremism, and radicalism, particularly related
to religous-based terrorism which is very
hardly discussed in Southeast Asia. Indeed, Dr.
Anggoro mentioned his standpoint regarding
his skepticism for ASEAN-EU Cooperation.
dealing directly with issues of terrorism should
be strengthened and not merely use coercive
approaches. Other possibilities that can be
used by ASEAN in combating the terrorism
issues also can be related to the preventive
measures, such as engagement with former
terrorist group or combatants in order to
deepen understanding of its root causes as well
as the act of deradicalization.
Dr. Ming-Hsien Wong
Dr. Wong expressed his concerns on nontraditional security issues that needs more
comprehensive approach, particularly in
understanding the underlying causes of
problems. In light of this statement, he
also mentioned that Taiwan was ready for
cooperation on non-traditional security issues.
Iis Gindarsah
Mr. Gindarsah expressed his support for Dr.
Anggoro comments on the issues of terrorism,
radicalism, and extremism within the framework
for ASEAN-EU Cooperation. He added that law
enforcement within the ASEAN member-states
--END--
6
7
PROJECT SUPERVISOR:
Rahimah Abdulrahim
(Executive Director)
Hadi Kuntjara
(Deputy Director for Operations)
HEAD OF ASEAN STUDIES PROGRAM:
A. Ibrahim Almuttaqi
RESEARCHERS:
Steven Yohanes P.
Fina Astriana
Wirya Adiwena
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION :
Riesta Aldila
Layout and Design by Rahma
ASEAN Studies Program - The Habibie Center
The Habibie Center Building
Jl. Kemang Selatan No.98, Jakarta 12560
Tel: 62 21 781 7211
Fax: 62 21 781 7212
Email: [email protected]
www.habibiecenter.or.id
facebook.com/habibiecenter
@habibiecenter