• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • East Asia Summit 2018: Inclusion Is Best Way Forward
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO18212 | East Asia Summit 2018: Inclusion Is Best Way Forward
    Le Dinh Tinh

    18 December 2018

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    Inclusion may sound like a luxury concept in politics. Realities regarding Southeast Asia, however, suggest that inclusion helps bring the region to the desired outcome, especially in the long run.

    Commentary

    CAN ASEAN and its partners arrange a desirable regional security architecture amid the turbulence of today’s power politics? If so, how? The thought-provoking topic of regional architecture building now must be juxtaposed with major powers’ recent grand schemes, namely the United States’ Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

    From the perspective of small and medium–sized countries like those in ASEAN, there is no easy response to the above-mentioned questions. This has reminded ASEAN and other countries of a chronic problem: in an anarchic unpredictable and uncertain international system characterised by great power competition, lack of a supranational governing authority would make it hard to coordinate actions multilaterally. An open, inclusive architecture, however, would provide the best answer for the region going forward.

    Last Standing Theory?

    From the ASEAN-related meetings to bilateral mechanisms, from track-two diplomacy workshops to the heated public debate (and even the rise of nationalistic sentiments), small and medium-sized countries residing in the dynamic and complex Asia-Pacific region are more than ever concentrating their resources on winning strategies.

    Which type of architecture then would bode well for the region − hegemonic stability, predictable bipolar order, concert of powers or power politics?

    The world has seen times of great influence by a sole superpower, giving rise to the “hegemonic stability theory”, which suggests that if there is one strong leadership from the top, the world would be safer and more secure. To support an order with minimal number of poles, some argue a “predictable bipolar world” would also bring about more stability versus an “unpredictable multipolar world”.

    Hegemonic, Unipolar or Bipolar World Better?

    To the contrary, some would argue that small and medium-sized countries can enjoy more security and prosperity on the premise that all major powers treat each other like musicians in an orchestra. A concert of powers between major countries such as the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India is possible because they all share a mutual set of vital interests from economic cooperation to world peace and security.

    Another discourse has it that no matter a hegemon is in charge, or a group of major powers are in a concert or a balance of power, they would shape regional politics, security and prosperity anyway. By the rules of power politics, small and medium-sized countries have no choice but adapt themselves to hedging and balancing strategies and niche diplomacy.

    For a number of reasons, the rise of populism and the current rivalry and competition between the US and China reinforces this line of thinking:

    First, both unipolar or bipolar worlds have their pitfalls. The stability that these types of order promises demands no easy trade-offs. Small and medium-sized countries have to demonstrate either their loyalty to or the ability to walk the tight rope between major powers.

    Even when one is in a hegemonic order, the propensity of the sole leader having challengers also put other countries at risk. In fact, the current superpower status of the US is not without question since China is catching up economically and in other fields.

    Competition and Cooperation

    Second, one cannot take for granted that major powers can work with each other for their common dividend. There was only one period starting from 1815 when the Congress of Vienna agreed that Austria, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and then France engaged in a balance of power whereby no country made any threat to the common peace.

    Ambitious as it was, the Concert of Europe was continuously confronted by the nationalism in Europe, the reunification of Germany, and the resurgence in Italy. Finally this Congress system became void with the outbreak of the First World War.

    The Sino-US relationship is characterised by competition and cooperation. In either scenario, the rest of the international community has to follow the ups and downs of this relationship closely enough to avoid any adverse impact.

    Interdependent World

    Third, the world today is deeply interdependent as acknowledged by the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, governments, academic institutions, and businesses.

    G20, with the new emerging powers such as Indonesia and South Africa and various similar groupings, testifies to the fact that major powers no longer can singlehandedly shape what the world is like. The FOIP and the BRI could not move forward without the reception and support of small and medium-sized countries.

    This is a two-way street and an interactive exercise, not a unilateral imposition of will. And if one forgets the important roles of small and medium-sized countries, the national independence movements of the 1960s that swept every continent could help resurrect that historical evidence. Every nation has its own pride and capabilities.

    Fourth, it is obvious that small and medium-sized countries have never given up their aspiration of further democratising international relations. They, in fact, always find the most sensible ways to raise their voices and coordinate actions.

    Other great power challengers also seek to strengthen their international representation. For example, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) have been asked by Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany to expand membership. Few countries are willing to stand outside the “great bargain” by major powers.

    ASEAN’s Place In A Changing World

    Lastly, despite all the challenges, ASEAN and its institutions have demonstrated the ability to bring all the important stakeholders to the table.

    The ASEAN Community, launched in 2015, is on its way to becoming one of the biggest economies in the world. Security-wise, at least, in the Asia Pacific region, ASEAN and its related mechanisms are pushing for cooperative transborder peace and security with ASEAN being the centre of the evolving architecture.

    To date, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), though labelled by some as a talk shop, offers the only venue that discusses regional security from the South China Sea issue to the Korean peninsular to emerging threats. In the meantime, the East Asia Summit provides a significant forum for regional leaders to compare notes and discuss cooperative strategies.

    Today the representation of regional politics is not confined to any fragmented club of countries. From a bottom-up viewpoint, many countries wish to serve as a friendship bridge, not a security buffer zone or a peripherical player even in the anarchic system.

    When ASEAN leaders and their counterparts recently met again at the East Asia Summit in Singapore, they would have realised that if viewed top-down, only in an inclusive, transparent and open architecture can regional countries enjoy more opportunities to promote connectivity, common security and prosperity. The antithesis to having lasting solutions as such is nothing other than exclusionary thinking. Lessons have been learned.

    About the Author

    Le Dinh Tinh, PhD is Deputy Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. He contributed this specially to RSIS Commentary.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / International Politics and Security / Regionalism and Multilateralism / East Asia and Asia Pacific / Global / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 18/12/2018

    comments powered by Disqus
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Synopsis

    Inclusion may sound like a luxury concept in politics. Realities regarding Southeast Asia, however, suggest that inclusion helps bring the region to the desired outcome, especially in the long run.

    Commentary

    CAN ASEAN and its partners arrange a desirable regional security architecture amid the turbulence of today’s power politics? If so, how? The thought-provoking topic of regional architecture building now must be juxtaposed with major powers’ recent grand schemes, namely the United States’ Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIP) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

    From the perspective of small and medium–sized countries like those in ASEAN, there is no easy response to the above-mentioned questions. This has reminded ASEAN and other countries of a chronic problem: in an anarchic unpredictable and uncertain international system characterised by great power competition, lack of a supranational governing authority would make it hard to coordinate actions multilaterally. An open, inclusive architecture, however, would provide the best answer for the region going forward.

    Last Standing Theory?

    From the ASEAN-related meetings to bilateral mechanisms, from track-two diplomacy workshops to the heated public debate (and even the rise of nationalistic sentiments), small and medium-sized countries residing in the dynamic and complex Asia-Pacific region are more than ever concentrating their resources on winning strategies.

    Which type of architecture then would bode well for the region − hegemonic stability, predictable bipolar order, concert of powers or power politics?

    The world has seen times of great influence by a sole superpower, giving rise to the “hegemonic stability theory”, which suggests that if there is one strong leadership from the top, the world would be safer and more secure. To support an order with minimal number of poles, some argue a “predictable bipolar world” would also bring about more stability versus an “unpredictable multipolar world”.

    Hegemonic, Unipolar or Bipolar World Better?

    To the contrary, some would argue that small and medium-sized countries can enjoy more security and prosperity on the premise that all major powers treat each other like musicians in an orchestra. A concert of powers between major countries such as the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India is possible because they all share a mutual set of vital interests from economic cooperation to world peace and security.

    Another discourse has it that no matter a hegemon is in charge, or a group of major powers are in a concert or a balance of power, they would shape regional politics, security and prosperity anyway. By the rules of power politics, small and medium-sized countries have no choice but adapt themselves to hedging and balancing strategies and niche diplomacy.

    For a number of reasons, the rise of populism and the current rivalry and competition between the US and China reinforces this line of thinking:

    First, both unipolar or bipolar worlds have their pitfalls. The stability that these types of order promises demands no easy trade-offs. Small and medium-sized countries have to demonstrate either their loyalty to or the ability to walk the tight rope between major powers.

    Even when one is in a hegemonic order, the propensity of the sole leader having challengers also put other countries at risk. In fact, the current superpower status of the US is not without question since China is catching up economically and in other fields.

    Competition and Cooperation

    Second, one cannot take for granted that major powers can work with each other for their common dividend. There was only one period starting from 1815 when the Congress of Vienna agreed that Austria, Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and then France engaged in a balance of power whereby no country made any threat to the common peace.

    Ambitious as it was, the Concert of Europe was continuously confronted by the nationalism in Europe, the reunification of Germany, and the resurgence in Italy. Finally this Congress system became void with the outbreak of the First World War.

    The Sino-US relationship is characterised by competition and cooperation. In either scenario, the rest of the international community has to follow the ups and downs of this relationship closely enough to avoid any adverse impact.

    Interdependent World

    Third, the world today is deeply interdependent as acknowledged by the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, governments, academic institutions, and businesses.

    G20, with the new emerging powers such as Indonesia and South Africa and various similar groupings, testifies to the fact that major powers no longer can singlehandedly shape what the world is like. The FOIP and the BRI could not move forward without the reception and support of small and medium-sized countries.

    This is a two-way street and an interactive exercise, not a unilateral imposition of will. And if one forgets the important roles of small and medium-sized countries, the national independence movements of the 1960s that swept every continent could help resurrect that historical evidence. Every nation has its own pride and capabilities.

    Fourth, it is obvious that small and medium-sized countries have never given up their aspiration of further democratising international relations. They, in fact, always find the most sensible ways to raise their voices and coordinate actions.

    Other great power challengers also seek to strengthen their international representation. For example, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5) have been asked by Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany to expand membership. Few countries are willing to stand outside the “great bargain” by major powers.

    ASEAN’s Place In A Changing World

    Lastly, despite all the challenges, ASEAN and its institutions have demonstrated the ability to bring all the important stakeholders to the table.

    The ASEAN Community, launched in 2015, is on its way to becoming one of the biggest economies in the world. Security-wise, at least, in the Asia Pacific region, ASEAN and its related mechanisms are pushing for cooperative transborder peace and security with ASEAN being the centre of the evolving architecture.

    To date, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), though labelled by some as a talk shop, offers the only venue that discusses regional security from the South China Sea issue to the Korean peninsular to emerging threats. In the meantime, the East Asia Summit provides a significant forum for regional leaders to compare notes and discuss cooperative strategies.

    Today the representation of regional politics is not confined to any fragmented club of countries. From a bottom-up viewpoint, many countries wish to serve as a friendship bridge, not a security buffer zone or a peripherical player even in the anarchic system.

    When ASEAN leaders and their counterparts recently met again at the East Asia Summit in Singapore, they would have realised that if viewed top-down, only in an inclusive, transparent and open architecture can regional countries enjoy more opportunities to promote connectivity, common security and prosperity. The antithesis to having lasting solutions as such is nothing other than exclusionary thinking. Lessons have been learned.

    About the Author

    Le Dinh Tinh, PhD is Deputy Director General of the Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. He contributed this specially to RSIS Commentary.

    Categories: Commentaries / Country and Region Studies / International Politics and Security / Regionalism and Multilateralism

    Last updated on 18/12/2018

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    East Asia Summit 2018: Inclusion Is Best Way Forward

    Synopsis

    Inclusion may sound like a luxury concept in politics. Realities regarding Southeast Asia, however, suggest that inclusion helps bring the region t ...
    more info