National sovereignty over regional security in ASEAN?
today are growing and are supported by strong financial linkages”
78
and that there is a need for strengthening regional dialogue on counter-terrorism and
transnational crimes, without jeopardizing human rights. In the time when even AIDS is seen as the cause which can cause military conflict and have negative
influence on the regional stability, ARF also presumes that, among illicit drugs, infectious diseases, HIVAIDS, human trafficking and smuggling and more
others, terrorism is one of the biggest non-traditional security threats to ASEAN‟s
efforts to achieve regional integration, bringing to the confirmation tha t, what‟s
once being said that world peace was maintained by the theory of mutually assured destruction; now we are trying to create peace by mutual dependence is
now maybe more true than ever.
5.4 National sovereignty over regional security in ASEAN?
Mutual dependence was requiring from all states to fully implement the WMD treaties and conventions. In that spirit most of ASEAN states signed the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction CWC and the Convention
on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological Biological and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction
BTWC. But their implementation still remains underachieved.
78
Co-Chairs’ “u ary Report ,
, Malaysia, http:aseanregionalforum.asean.orgfileslibraryARF20Chairmans20Statements20and2
0ReportsThe20Nineteenth20ASEAN20Regional20Forum,202011-20121120-20Co- Chairs20Summary20Report20-204th20ARF20ISM20on20NPD,20Sydney.pdf
, p. 3
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report in 2006 showed only Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia and Viet Nam as countries that
developed national protection programs, Brunei and Laos as countries that have only inspection of the imported chemical precursors and limited licensing
procedures. Myanmar and Thailand are still not reporting about their national controls. All of those are related to the chemical weapons controls. In the field of
biological weapons those controls are almost non-existing. Biosecurity legislation exist in Malaysia - the Poisons Act of 1952, the Prevention and Control of
Infectious Disease Act of 1988 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1994. But none of these are correlated to the bioterrorism.
In order to bring to the mutual benefit of bio-terrorism threat free region, the Philippines and the US took the lead on bioterrorism and biosecurity issues, which
so far, produced ARF Bio-Risk Management Workshop in Manila, the Philippines on 28-30 September 2010.
That workshop brought to the cooperation of the agencies fighting disease outbreaks.
Following the same path, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines signed an agreement that has the cooperation of the authorities
as the main goal. Sharing the information on airline passenger lists and databases of fingerprints, is one of the big steps, by the agreement, that is expected to be
followed by the other ASEAN members, too.
What is also being emphasized, besides strengthening of national legislations regarding WMD, are needs for stronger export controls. That issue
was specially discussed during the 11th ASEAN Regional Forum held in Jakarta
on 2 July 2004. ASEAN‟s export control systems are seen as weak, except the one
practiced in Singapore. Most of the member states do participate in the workshops or seminars concentrating on the strengthening of domestic measures within
export control system, but not so many of them is applying the knowledge gain on those programs. Many of those programs were organized by Track II diplomacy
body, CSCAP. As an exception, Indonesia has been trying to secure nuclear materials within its borders, but her export controls are still far from good
legislation. Same problem occurred with Thailand. the Philippines, which is in the process of establishing a comprehensive export control regime to deal with
nuclear materials and chemical substances, but with no biological weapons controls. Malaysia admitted that its trade regulations were driven by economic
rather than security considerations and explained that it was not a lack of capacity that was hindering the development of a more comprehensive export control
system. The importance of good export control systems should come together with the developing means of transportation, but also the rising issues of people
smuggling and trafficking, bringing to the possibilities of the infections being easier transmitted.
As was said, the ARF was designed to foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest. Through political
dialogue and confidence-building, no tension has escalated into armed confrontation among ASEAN members since its establishment. Now, the
assumption is that the same results can be expected in the field of bio-threats. In 2007, during the ASEAN counterterrorism workshop in Jakarta which hosted,
except ASEAN members, and bioterrorism experts from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the International Criminal Police Organization, the
Singapore Police Force and the Hong Kong Police, one of the main conclusions was that “the law enforcers are expected to share their experiences in preventing
bioterrorism threats and to cooperate in dealing with terrorism acts”.
79
Again, in January 2012, during the ASEAN workshop on forging cooperation among anti-
terror units in Jakarta ASEAN and Canada “agreed to take joint preventive measures against bio-
terrorism.”
80
It is evident that ARF is creating reports and documents emphasizing the need of cooperation, but with no significant follow up. That follow up should include
not just the cooperation with G8, but with all big organizations around the world. Since now, although it emphasized the importance of the cooperation with its
neighbors and the fact that Australia is the part of the A RF, none of the ASEAN‟s
members is the member of the Australia Group AG. AG was established in 1985 for preventing the spread of chemical weapons but in 1992 reorganized itself to
deal with biological weapons. There are presently 30 members of the Group, including: Japan, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea, but no members from
South-East Asia. In so far work, the AG made important guidelines which biological agent, plants, animal pathogens and biological facilities should be
controlled by domestic export control laws. What is considered to be important,
79
Jakarta Post,
2007, ASEAN
told to
prepare for
bioterrorism ,
http:www.techzone360.comnews200707132781448.htm , [15.06.2013]
80
Press TV,
ASEAN, Canada
to fight
bio-terrorism ,
26.01.2008, http:edition.presstv.irdetail40349.html
, [23.06.2013]
by the authors opinion, is that the group gave recommendations that legal and financial assistance, need for the realization of those guidelines, should be
provided to the developing countries. What should be expected of ASEAN is to get involved with the help and mechanism that are already on its disposals, and
support assistance and initiatives going on the ministerial level focusing on threats like is bioterrorism. Leading countries in providing those assistance in the region
are Australia, Japan and the US. Why is relation with Australia also out of great importance is security of the borders, especially with Indonesia. Concern for
Australia rises with every boat carrying illegal immigrants that are entering the country and assimilating with local people without any health controls. For those
purposes Australia is establishing deeper cooperation with Jakarta, providing financial support for the military and police. The same methodology was used in
the ASEAN-Canada cooperation which concentrated on workshops on preventing
bioterrorism and on cooperation among anti-terror agencies, as well as implementation of Canada-Asia Regional Emerging Infectious Diseases such as
avian influenza and pandemic influenza.
One of the biggest surprises came at the 14th ASEAN Regional Forum, in 2007, with a suggestion to form a new regional body which will concentrate only
on disarmament and non-proliferation issues. Although the idea was welcomed in the international community, it never came to a realization. By not realizing the
suggestion, the opinion of ASEAN as an organization of low institutionalization and non-binding decisions, principles of consensus and non-interference,
diplomatic tradition that “have contributed to this situation by placing informal
dialogue above more concrete forms of cooperation. Although this has played an important role in fostering trust and confidence it has sometimes left a gap
between words and deeds, ”
81
became much stronger. As Reuters noted, the World Health Organization has tried to persuade Indonesia and other countries to share
their samples of avian flu H5N1 with the international scientific community. “Previously, Indonesia had declined to do so under a principle its government
called „viral sovereignty,‟ by which it meant that microbes found in Indonesia belonged to the state and did not have to be shared with outsiders.”
82
On one hand this stand is confirming the strong sense of sovereignty that exists within ASEAN
states, and that stand is keeping them away from the political integration Haas was mentioning, but
not as far from Deutsch‟s security community that doesn‟t required so formal institutions as long as they are contributing to the peaceful
transition among the states. On another hand the the stand is rising the concern among international community. If Thailand and Jakarta were denying existence
of terrorism within its territories and then faced with bomb attacks, does it mean that refusing to give an insight into the microbes is a denial of bio potentials that
would, eventually, lead to bio-attack?