The following is a presentation given by the Center’s Executive Director, Mr. Imtiaz Gul, at the third CICA Think Tank Roundtable on Asian security cooperation, their issues, concepts and institutions. The presentation was given on May 11, 2015, in Shanghai, China.
Updating Concepts of Asian Security
Since this morning, we have heard exciting views on geo-politics, the diminishing stature of the United States, One Belt One Road and the need for a collaborative world order that allows free flow of people and goods across the globe – as envisioned by the Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Let me begin with a quote from the US President Obama’s speech at a three day summit at the State Department on violent extremism, in February 2015. He accepted two bitter realities:
First, he said, “There is no one profile of a violent extremist or terrorist… It’s not unique to one group or to one geography or one period of time… but we are here at this summit because of the urgent threat from groups like al-Qaeda and ISIL,” he said, using a term to refer to the Islamic State.
Second, “Engagement with communities can’t be a cover for surveillance. It can’t securitize our relationship with Muslim Americans, dealing with them solely through the prism of law enforcement,” he said as the audience applauded in response.
This was an admission by the US, that it had used international non-governmental organizations to gather intelligence in our countries. In fact last year, the State Department made a public commitment that the CIA would not use international development agencies as intelligence cover any more. Why did they have to say this?
Because Muslim majority territories from western China to Central / South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula and Africa – Xinjiang, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt Libya, Syria, Algeria, Nigeria, Yemen, Sudan – today face one or the other form of violent conflict driven by regional or national religio-political groups.
Al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda Indian sub-continent, Al-Shebab, Boko-Haram, Taliban, the Islamic State (IS) are all but a few manifestations of an increasingly volatile political landscape. The IS, the latest entrant to the world of militant Islam has triggered fresh fears along old battle-lines. The Islamic State is certainly stoking fears in major western capitals as the group continues to galvanize disgruntled youth, mostly those confronted with an identity crisis or those who feel isolated and marginalized in western societies.
The sheer number of incidents of violence (Charlie Hebdo, shootings in Copenhagen, the stand-off in Sydney), as well as terrorist plots intercepted or arrests of alleged terrorists in Spain, Germany, and France are all alarming enough to enforce close anti-terror cooperation. Governments in the Americas, Canada, and Australia are facing the same challenge; how to insulate their Muslim populations from the growing toxic narratives peddled both by al-Qaeda and the IS.
Clearly, history has moved full circle; the United States and its allies – all those who had once directly or otherwise supported non-state actors in the Middle East, South America, or Afghanistan to pursue their geo-political objectives in the war against the Soviet Union, communism and China – are now tasting their own medicine.
This basically takes us to the consequences of the securitization of global geo-politics – in which both the UN and NATO were used as instruments of political expansion and economic pre-dominance by the US-led NATO.
This obviously throws up daunting traditional and non-traditional challenges to entire Asia, including:
a) geo-commercial interests;
b) nationalist movements – mostly triggered by a sense of socio-economic injustices;
c) inter-state disputes over territory and resources; and
d) external support for internal insurgencies/revolts by small/nationalist/or religious groups which threaten national stability – all in the name of human rights.
It also gives rise to non-traditional security threats, such as:
a) the encroaching monster of trans-border religious radicalism;
b) sense of socio-political marginalization / injustices, particularly among religious, ethnic minorities;
c) organized crime ( drugs, smuggling of goods/people);
d) Nexus between organized crime and ideological rebel groups;
e) water and food insecurity, shrinking maritime resources;
f) natural calamities; and
g) migrations induced by social or economic adversity.
These traditional and non-traditional threats impose limitations to trade and development plans. They can easily sabotage such strategies.
That is why we need is to look at security as a holistic concept, a concept that requires international dialogue, harmony and cooperative competition, instead of confrontation. Security needs a multi-lateral and integrated multi-tier approaches. Wars are not about territorial occupation anymore; they are about survival through smart, non-confrontational, collaborative approaches which can benefit all.
Isolated economic models and sanctions don’t guarantee success of grand visions. The success of One Belt One Road will depend on equitable development of all regions that are connected by this concept.
That is why we need to update and adapt the concept of security to what the Chinese leadership has so nicely spelt out through the One Belt One Road concept, which is a comprehensive expression of interest and desire to connect all countries through roads and economic corridors. This also fits into the ideals of CICA i.e. a new Asian security architecture that is built on trust, confidence and in the spirit of cooperation which means a win-win for all.
President Xi Jinping resonated this vision during his Islamabad visit:
“…we should stick together and jointly face security threats… China is willing to align its development strategies with those of South Asian countries to achieve mutually beneficial development and common prosperity.”
The challenge now for the south and west Asian countries is to how to align their strategies with those of China and stay in step with Beijing for the realization of the One Road One Belt.