Analysis Rethinking the ASEAN Regional Forum Tang Siew Mun proposes that the ARF should create synergies with the ADMM-Plus to stay relevant in the regional security architecture. T he ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) opened a new chapter in the Asian security discourse and ushered in the “golden age” of Asian multilateralism when its establishment was approved at the 26th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting and Post-Ministerial Conference held in Singapore from 23-25 July 1993. It was one of the most visible peace dividends in the wake of the Cold War, but detractors argue that it has not lived up to expectations. Indeed, over the past 25 years, the forum has been criticised for being long on speeches while falling short on tangible deliverables. institutional terms. In essence, the Indo-Pacific concept makes the case for the indivisibility of the Indian and Pacific oceans and recasts the large swathe of space between the two entities into a single strategic construct. The ARF has failed to reconcile the differing regional security complexes and interests of the Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia, Australasia and South Asia regions, and it is unlikely that any new proposal of an overarching institution would fare any better. In fact, moving from either “East Asia” or “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific” would in all likelihood amplify the divergence of existing security outlooks and interests. To be sure, the ARF’s record on addressing hard security issues such as nuclear proliferation in the Korean Nevertheless, the ARF continues to bring enormous Peninsula and the South China Sea disputes was less benefits to the region and its members. First, the ARF’s than stellar. Nevertheless, the ARF has kept to the remit “big tent” approach connects Papua New Guinea, of its twin objectives: (a) to foster constructive dialogue Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Mongolia, and consultation on political and security issues of Pakistan, Timor-Leste, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, with common interest and concern; and (b) to make significant ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners. These security linkages contributions to efforts towards confidence-building extends further into the Track 2 level with the DPRK and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region. and Mongolia being members of the Council for Security Although the 27-member grouping has yet to make a Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) which provides mark in the preventive diplomacy domain, the ARF has recommendations to the ARF. Similarly, the European been a pillar in fostering regional security dialogue and in Union’s absence in the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ engendering confidence-building measures in the wider Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus) means that the ARF is the Asia-Pacific region. only regional security mechanism for the EU to engage the region in security matters. It also bears reminding While the ARF is, and will likely be, an important feature in that multilateral institutions such as the ARF continue to the regional security architecture, it needs to reinvent itself provide the strategic link for the US to the region as the to remain relevant. It was a novelty in its formative years Trump Administration recalibrates Washington’s as yet when the region, recently freed from the straightjacket of undefined Asia policy. the Cold War, sought to move away from the traditional and divisive mindset of “security against” to “security Second, for all ARF members, the annual meeting provides with,” envisaging a new mechanism for regional security. a venue to engage in security discussions and to flag On balance, this experiment has not yielded the desired concerns on extant and emerging challenges, providing results. Nevertheless, the case for the ARF remains strong for greater transparency and setting the stage for further as the evolving regional strategic landscape marked by cooperation. The ARF also speaks to ASEAN’s convening uncertainty and punctuated by various degrees of distrust power to gather a wide array of nations, powerful and and signs of animosity requires a neutral and inclusive small, in a conducive environment to build trust and craft platform to prevent the further fraying of the delicate regional solutions to mitigate security risks. peace and stability. However, there is a big difference between “talking” and For the past 25 years, the ARF has struggled to balance “doing” security. The inability to command the relevant between its expansive membership, which is undoubtedly and necessary operational resources to promote regional one of its strongest points, and forging a consensus on a security has always been the Achilles’ heel of the forum. common actionable agenda. This experience provides a Headed by officials from the ministry of foreign affairs cautionary tale for Indo-Pacific proponents, especially in (MFA), the ARF’s strength lies in diplomacy. It does not 10 — ISSUE 5/2018