CONCEPTUALISING POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUALISING POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM

Introduction

The term politico-security regionalism is composed of two different concepts: ‘political security’ and ‘regionalism’. That is, politico-security regionalism is concerned with political security in its regional context. By politico- or political security, on the one hand, is meant the ‘security politics’ of conflict and cooperation as social reality, which is defined and redefined by states as main actors. By regionalism, on the other hand, is meant a bundle of political ideas, norms and interests, which are socially (re)constructed by regional states. In this context, it is important to note that ‘regional states’, which denote the member states of regional grouping, should be distinguished from both global states and nation-states. In terms of the agents of regionalism, in fact, both terms ‘global states’ and ‘nation-states’ are not sufficient to explain the concept of politico-security regionalism.From a globalist perspective of Wallerstein’s world-system theory, states are normally seen as a substructure of international system to maintain a capitalist world system that contains a core, a periphery, and a semi-periphery (Viotti and Kauppi 1999:341-360). From a neo-realist perspective of Waltz’s structural realism, states (which can be regarded as a major component of anarchical international structure) are powerless to change the structure in which they find themselves (Viotti and Kauppi 1999:66-76).Both perspectives are deterministic in character in which individual policymakers can do little to affect events despite a differing degree. In exploring the concept of politicosecurity regionalism driven by regional states as main actors in this study, however, the term ‘regional states’ is often used from a perspective of social constructivism so that it can be seen as constitutive elements in which intersubjective factors such as norms,identities and interests are not treated as fixed, but as being flexible, to be made and remade (cf Söderbaum 1998:75-92). Given the aforementioned assumptions, thus, the concept of politico-security regionalism can be understood in the open-ended context of political projects to be constructed by ‘regional states’ in response to external, as well as internal forces.In fact, both concepts of security and regionalism seem to encompass widely diverging definitions. In terms of security, as Buzan (1991:7) points out in People, States & Fear,the concept has an ‘essentially contested nature’. A number of scholars contest the definition of the term because at its core, there are moral, ideological, and normative elements that render empirical data irrelevant and prevent reasonable people from agreeing with one another on a fixed definition (Lipschutz, 1995:7). Despite the lack of an agreed definition, Buzan et al. (1998) suggest a typology for analysing security comprised of five major sectors: military, political, economic, societal and environmental.The authors attempted to broaden the definition of security to include freedom from military, political, societal, economic and environmental threats. Yet, given that all security threats are constituted politically (Ayoob, 1995:8-12; Buzan et al., 1998:141-162), it becomes possible to see the concept of security in the political context.As indicated above, thus, given that ‘all [security] threats … are … defined politically’ (Buzan et al.1998:141), the influence of the other sectors on matters that affect security must be filtered through the political sector and must be relevant to that sector:namely, when developments in other sectors threaten to have political meanings,contexts and consequences such as threats to state boundaries, political institutions, or governing regimes, these other variables must be taken into account as a part of politico-security calculus (Ayoob, 1995:8). In this sense, it can be argued that the political sector needs to be informed by the other areas of human activities, including military, economic, social and environmental (Buzan 1991:19). However, as Ayoob (1995:8) points out, the politico-security realm should retain its distinctiveness from other realms: that is, phenomena such as economic deprivation and environmental degradation can be viewed as events, occurrences, and variables that may be linked to, but are essentially distinct from, the realm of politico-security as defined for purposes of this study.In terms of regionalism, as mentioned earlier, the concept is also contested and complex. As Hurrell (1995a:333; 1995b:38) notes, ‘the range of factors that may be implicated in the growth of regionalism is very wide and includes economic, social,political, cultural and historic dimensions’. In addition, Fawcett (1995:10) argues that‘just as there are no absolute or naturally determined regions, there is no single explanation that encompasses the origins and development of the regional idea’.
Nonetheless, given that regionalism becomes a state or political project (Hettne, 1994;Gamble and Payne, 1996; Grugel and Hout, 1999), regionalism can also be studied in the context of political dynamics that are socially constructed through various interactions among states. Thus both terms ‘security’ and ‘regionalism’ can be understood in the political context of states as main actors. However, the assumptions above need to be argued more fully in this chapter. Therefore, this chapter will focus on the term ‘security regionalism’ in the political context by illuminating related concepts, including region, regionalism, regionalisation, regional security, and politico-security. In reviewing the literature on these topics, this chapter seeks to address key issues which are at the heart of a debate on politicosecurity and regionalism: what is meant by these terms? what does link the two different concepts such as ‘politico-security’ and ‘regionalism’? and why is it that the multi-level approach is necessary to utilise these concepts? In exploring these central questions, firstly, the chapter will try to define politico- or political security with exploring the related concepts, including weak states, states-making, sovereignty and the state as the primary referent/agent of politico-security. Thereafter, it will discuss the characteristics of ‘regionalism’ in particular context of‘new’ regionalism. In doing so, in this chapter, I suggest the three different levels(including the domestic, regional, extra-regional levels) so as to assist in clarifying the concept of politico-security regionalism. Under the assumption that such regional organisations as ASEAN and SADC(C) are primarily driven by the ‘member’ states respectively, nonetheless, I attempt to stress the regional level through holding the political sector as primary and regional states as the focal point to analyse security regionalisms of ASEAN and SADC(C). In conceptualising the term ‘politico-security
regionalism’ in this chapter, it is important to note that the concept will be seen as regional (political) projects which can be shaped and reshaped by the regional(member) states.

Defining Security: Politico-Security

As mentioned above, politico- or political security concerns the politics of conflict and cooperation amongst states as main actors. In general, the politics of conflict and cooperation is socially constructed by human agency (Vasquez, 1995:221). According to Buzan et al. (1998:141-162), politico-security is about relationships of political authority, recognition and such a means of managing conflict as compromise and consensus. In this context, that is, Buzan et al. (1998:7-8) argue that politico-security concerns the organisational stability of such social order(s) as states, systems of government and the ideologies that give them legitimacy. In more detail, Buzan (1991:118-119) defines politico-security as follows:Political threats are aimed at the organisational stability of the state.Their purpose may range from pressuring the government on a particular policy, through overthrowing the government, to fomenting secessionism, and disrupting the political fabric of the state so as to weaken it prior to military attack. The idea of the state, particularly its national identity and organising ideology, and the institutions which express it, are the normal target of political threats. Since the state is an essentially political entity, political threats may be as much feared as military ones. This is particularly so if the target is a weak state. Threats to politico-security in developing states come mainly from within their borders. Political systems in many developing states, including the member states of ASEAN and SADC, generate autocratic practices embodied in a minority regime, which manipulates the apparatus of the state in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner that furthers the interests of the minority. As a result, regimes in power face challenges from domestic opposition in the form of strikes, riots, rebellions and even armed resistance.Consequently, such regimes generate oppressive and repressive violence, which ndangers the security of excluded populations or those advocating alternative policies(Fall, 1993:76). South Africa during apartheid provided a good example of an illegitimate regime since the ruling regime was racially exclusive and thus based on minority rule. The regime security was maintained at the expense of the security of the majority of South Africans. However, SADCC as a response to apartheid South Africa appropriated such norms as racial equality which were supported not only by continental forces but also by global forces (see Klotz, 1995; also Chapter 5). Consequently, for SADCC, the security of the region was believed to be achieved by attaining a non-racial political system in South Africa which at the same time represented the insecurity of the Pretoria government and its apartheid regime (Booth and Vale, 1995:307; also Chapter 5). Meanwhile, for ASEAN, the East Timor crisis (1999-2000) is a case in point in explaining the characters of politico-security in the developing world. The political instability caused by external forces (the Asian economic crisis during 1997-1998) as well as internal forces (growing riots against human rights violations during 1999) in Indonesia and the impact of the crisis on Indonesia’s neighbours were also a threat to other regimes in the region. In fact, many ASEAN member states were worried that East Timor’s separation would destabilise the whole region by promoting other discontented groups to push for independence: owing to this kind of fear, the ASEAN states attempted initially to stick to the principle of non-interference and objected to intervening in the East Timor crisis (Dupont, 2000:164). Yet, although the ASEAN states were largely reluctant to intervene in the East Timor crisis, later on, they decided to join such external intervention as the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET) with a view to enhancing regional solidarity and consensus within ASEAN on how to address regional problems (see Chapter 6).Politico-security in ASEAN and SADC(C) can therefore be understood in the context of political interactions amongst the member states in relation to internal (domestic) and external (global) forces. Given the assumption that the term political is composed of historicity, change and temporality (Walker, 1995:307-309), the concept of politicosecurity needs to be seen as an open-ended process in which security (as a sociopolitical construct) can be constructed and continually reconstructed.However, traditionally, security was almost unhesitatingly understood to refer to the security of states and military security: in this way, security came to mean national security and was synonymous with defence (Booth, 1994:3). In fact, the traditional concept of security focused on nation-states as both agents and objects of the most important occurrence in international politics. Here, two underlying assumptions are important to note: first, that threats to a state’s security principally arose from outside its borders; and second, that these threats were primarily, if not exclusively, politicomilitary in nature and usually required military responses if the security of the target state was to be preserved (Ayoob, 1994:225). The political element of warfare as an instrument of state policy has been most famously summarised by Clausewitz ([1832],1996:317), who argued that: ‘[w]ar is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means’. This Clausewitzian conceptualisation of security is also manifest in the following definition of security by McLean (1996:521): war, which can be defined as‘[a]rmed conflict between two or more parties, usually fought for political ends’, is considered by neo-realists as ‘a consequence of the anarchic structure of the international system’. During the Cold War, for structural realists or neo-realists, the idea of the ‘security dilemma’ was prominent. The term security dilemma was first clearly articulated in the 1950s by Herz (1950:157) who argued as follows: ‘a structural notion in which the selfhelp attempts of states to look after their security needs, tend … to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and the measures of others as potentially threatening’. In the early 1980s, however, Buzan (1983) introduced the concept of a mature anarchy in terms of moderating the security dilemma. Subsequently, Buzan (1991:177) argued that a mature anarchy would ‘be a highly ordered and stable system in which states would enjoy a great deal of security deriving both from their own inner strength and maturity’. The extreme case of mature anarchy can be regarded as a security community (Deutsch et al., 1957), in which states no longer expect or prepare to use force in their relations with each other.Although a security regime (Jervis,1982:357-378), in which states still treat each other as potential threats but have made reassurance arrangements to reduce the security dilemma among them, is not categorised into the extreme case of mature anarchy, it can also be considered as being inclined towards mature anarchy.Yet, during the Cold War, the type of security in the developing world, including the ASEAN and SADC(C) regions can, to some extent, be better characterised as‘immature’ anarchy instead of ‘mature’ anarchy. At the immature end of the spectrum lies ‘conflict formation’ coined by Väyrynen (1984:337-359), which was largely considered as the outcome of colonial legacy. In the post-colonial context, Job (1992:11-36) raises the idea of an ‘insecurity dilemma’ confronting developing states. That is, Job (1992:18) explains that the concept of an insecurity dilemma can be seen as the outcome of the competition of the various threats in society being (1) less effective security for all or certain sectors of the population, (2) less effective capacity of state institutions to provide order and services, and (3) increased vulnerability of the state and its people to influence, intervention, and control by outside actors, be they other states, communal groups, or multinational corporations. Although Job (1992:11-36) argues for the idea of an insecurity dilemma within developing states, it is important to note that he stresses the important differences between developing and developed states rather than just negating the security dilemma itself. That is, Job (1992:11-36) attempted to relate the security dilemma to the domestic (in)security of developing states. Nonetheless, Ayoob (1995) argues that the majority of developing states suffer from a security predicament that is much more complex and much more driven by domestic factors than the security dilemma that neo-realism posits. As indicated in chapter 1, in fact, such mainstreams of contemporary international relations theory as neo-realism have always been Euroand Cold-War-centric: that is, contemporary neo-realism starts with the assumption that while all states are basically similar, and that the real problem of international relations is the anarchic structure of international system which might lead to war between the Great Powers, ‘the peripheries are simply unimportant, indeed invisible’ (Holsti, 1998:104).

CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Research Problem and Aim 
1.3 Theoretical Orientations
1.4 Demarcation of the Study 
1.5 Research Methods
1.6 Limitations
1.7 Levels of Analysis
1.8 Structure of the Study and Outline
CHAPTER 2 CONCEPTUALISING POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM 
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Defining Security: Politico-Security
2.2.1 Weak States, States-Making and Politico-Security
2.2.2 Sovereignty and Politico-Security
2.2.3 The State: Primary Referent/Agent of Politico-Security
2.3 Defining Regionalism: Politico-Security Regionalism
2.3.1 The Domestic Level
2.3.2 The Regional Level
2.3.3 The Extra-Regional Level
2.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3 THEORISING POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Neo-realism 
3.3 Neo-liberal institutionalism
3.4 Constructivism 
3.4.1 Institutions
3.4.2 Norms
3.4.3 Collective Identity
3.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4 POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: THE EMERGENCE OF THE ‘ASEAN WAY’ IN THE COLD-WAR ERA 
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Origin of ASEAN 
4.3 The Evolution of ASEAN
4.4 ASEAN’s Collective Identity: norms and principles
4.5 ASEAN’s Security Diplomacy: the Cambodian conflict (1978-1989) 
4.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5 POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM IN SOUTHERN AFRICA:SADCC AS A RESPONSE TO APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA IN THE COLD WAR ERA 
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Origin of SADCC 
5.3 The Evolution of SADCC 
5.4 Politico-Economic Security Strategy
5.5 Politico-Military Security Cooperation
5.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6 POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA:CONTINUITY AND CHALLENGE TO THE ‘ASEAN WAY’ IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA 
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Emergence of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF): The impact of the‘ASEAN Way’ on the ARF 
6.3 Conflict Management in the ASEAN Region
6.3.1 The South China Sea Conflict (1992-2004)
6.3.2 The East Timor Crisis (1999-2000)
6.4 Continuity and Challenge to the ‘ASEAN Way
6.4.1 The Asian Economic Crisis and Regional Security: Rethinking the principle of non-intervention
6.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7 THE REMAKING OF SADC POLITICO-SECURITY REGIONALISM IN THE POST-COLD WAR ERA
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The SADC Organ (OPDS): The emergence of a formal regional security structure 
7.3 Conflict Management in the DRC Crisis (1998-2004)
7.3.1 The Zimbabwe-led Intervention in the DRC: Collective Self-Defence?
7.3.2 The Unilateral Intervention in the DRC: Pursuing the legitimacy of operation
7.3.3 Peacemaking in the DRC Conflict: From unilateral intervention to multilateral diplomacy
7.4 Restructuring SADC’s Security Architectur
7.4.1 From OPDS to OPDSC: Towards regional security integration
7.4.2 The Politics of the SADC Mutual Defence Pact
7.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 8 A COMPARISON OF THE TWO CASE STUDIES
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Comparative Findings
8.2.1 Institutionalisation
8.2.2 Norm-based Conflict Management
8.2.3 Collective (Regional) Identity as Exceptionalism
8.2.4 Bringing In Multi-level Approaches to Politico-Security Regionalism
8.3 Theoretical Findings 
8.3.1 Neo-realism
8.3.2 Neo-liberal institutionalism
8.3.3 Constructivism
8.4 Conclusion 
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
The Mechanisms of Politico-Security Regionalism in Southeast Asia and Southern Africa: A Comparative Case Study of ASEAN and SADC