BANGKOK, THAILAND–(Marketwire – February 26, 2010) –   (Media OutReach-Marketwire) — The 4th Thailand Auto Parts & Accessories Exhibition (TAPA 2010) will be held from April 28-May 2, 2010 at the Bangkok International Trade & Exhibition Center (BITEC) in Bangna, Bangkok.

TAPA 2010 aims to promote ASEAN as the regional sourcing hub for auto parts and accessories. The event is designed to meet the expansive sourcing needs of the automotive and accessories industry.

For the first time in the history of TAPA, there will be an ASEAN Pavilion, participated by 5 ASEAN countries. Leading auto parts and accessories companies from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam have confirmed their participation.

Exhibitors that have confirmed participation include ACMA, Thai Rung, Sammitr Auto, Formula Industrial, Summit Auto, Wichien Dynamic, Fortune Parts, The Summit Auto, Srithai Auto Seat, Somboon Group and Thai Radiator.

Another new feature at TAPA 2010 will be the Buyers’ Pavilion which will serve as a valuable platform for automotive buyers to share their needs with the exhibitors, explore business opportunities and discuss strategic partnerships.

A total of 288 exhibitors from Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam and Singapore have confirmed their participation.

TAPA 2010 will showcase a range of products from auto parts and components (OEM/REM), auto accessories, petroleum/lubricants/maintenance products, vehicle and repair and maintenance services at more than 10,000 square meters at BITEC, Bangna. More than 16,000 visitors from ASEAN, South Asia, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Africa and Europe are expected to attend this exhibition.

As a regional automotive manufacturing hub, ASEAN’s automotive suppliers have the expertise to meet international standards in terms of quality, delivery and cost for both original equipment and replacement market.

The export oriented nature of the industry gives ASEAN the necessary scale and advantage to be price competitive, while providing the engineering design capabilities to develop automotive parts for global needs. TAPA 2010 will be the best place to source for auto parts and accessories from ASEAN.

TAPA 2010 is organized by the Department of Export Promotion, Ministry of Commerce, Royal Thai Government and co-organized by the Thai Auto-Parts Manufacturers Association.

For more information, please visit the website at www.thailandautopartsfair.com

Contact
Ms. Sasikarn Watthanachan
Email Contact

Companies need to adjust organizational structure and operating strategy to take advantage of regional trade groups. These are,

01. EU (European Union):

The EU is become a most powerful trade block in the world. It has members of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lather lands, Porchukcal, Spain, Sweden, and U.K.

02. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement):

99% of the goods traded between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. It is a large trading block but includes countries of different sizes and wealth.

Additional provisions are:

-          Workers right

-          Dispute resolution mechanism

03. LAFTA (Latin American Free Trade Association):

LAFTA and the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA) changed their names to the Latin American Integration Association and Caribbean community and common market (CARICOM). It has U.S as their major export market.

04. ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations):

It is organized in 1967and it has Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Jan 1, 1993 ASEAN officially formed the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA).

Its goal is to cut tariffs on all intra-zonal trade to a maximum of 5%.

05. APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation):

It was formed in NOV 1989 to promote multilateral economic co-operation in trade and investment in the Pacific Rim. It is composed of 21 countries that border the Pacific Rim – both Asia as well as the America.

It’s creating new opportunities for American business and creating new employment for American workers.

06. EFTA (European Free Trade Association):

It was established in Jan 1960, EFTA currently joins 4 countries – Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Members are Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined on Jan 1, 1996.

07. SAARC (The South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation):

The SAARC involving seven countries, namely India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Maldives, was formally launched in Dec 1985.

Objectives are:

To promote welfare of the people of South Asia. To accelerate economic growth. To strengthen co-operation with other developing countries.

08. SAPTA (The SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement):

The SAPTA has the members of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives.

Overall reciprocity and mutually of advantages. Step by step negotiations and extension of preferential trade arrangement in stages. Inclusion of all types of products – Raw, Semi-processed, Processed. Special and favorable treatment to Least Development Countries (LDCs).

09. Indo – Lanka Free Trade Agreement:

According to the Bilateral Free Trade Area Agreement signed by India and Sri Lanka on 28th Dec 1998, a large number of items will be eligible for duty free trade.

It has offered to permit as much as 1000 items on Zero duty from Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka will allow duty free imports of 900 items from India.

Its Objectives are.

Expansion of trade the harmonious development of the economic relations between India and Sri Lanka. Removal of barriers to trade. Expansion of world trade.

It is a significant fact that SAARC is one of such actions where politically, the two-pronged atmosphere between India and some of its neighbouring countries deteriorated during 1974-76. Consequent upon such criteria, these two neighbouring countries started gazing for regional and international loom to force India so as to take out adjustment from it on their particular two-pronged issues. The first move of Bangladesh in order to raise the river-water sharing issue at the UN in 1976, Nepal’s suggestion to acquire it standard as a zone of peace and Pakistan’s active peacekeeping at the United Nations to search out South Asia acknowledged as a nuclear-weapon free zone possibly will be evoked at this juncture. Soviet forces interference in Afghanistan in 1979 had conveyed about a serious flagging in the South Asian safekeeping state of affairs and fashioned urgency for getting together in the region. Although it is factual that the peripheral pressures to form a South Asian regional system of government were not as great as it was in the case of the European Community, they were not absolutely missing or insignificant. Internal or external what ever was the cause the level of urgency for regional co-operation was not bedded on equal concepts in the midst of the South Asian states.

During May 1980, Bangladesh had controversial proposition for a South Asian regional system of government after argument with some small South Asian states. India and Pakistan, the two life-size powers in South Asia, articulated strong uncertainties. This tentativeness reveals the survival of many suspicious questions among the South Asian states. India was highly apprehensive of the application and outlook it as a new-fangled device to institutionalise the neighbours ‘ganging up’ in opposition to India to mine dispensation on issues heart-rending each of them independently. Pakistan trepidation that any South Asian forum would sooner or later India’s welfare and legitimises its regional ascendancy in South Asia. Also, in accordance with conceptual view of Pakistani authorities, in South Asia economic and political conditions for institutionalising regional co-operation were missing. Both India and Pakistan accepted the proposal for regional co-operation only ‘in principle’. They could accept a regional forum only when it did not seek to undermine their respective interests. Accordingly, it was suggested that unanimity in taking decisions and avoidance of two-pronged and controversial issues should comprise the basic standard of the anticipated forum ahead.

In keeping with those diverse attitudes, the seven South Asian states (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) officially were underway in respect of their co-operation from their first apex supposed on 8th December 1985 in Dhaka. They were well conversant that heterogeneous issues might encumber their co-operation, but for accomplishing their relevant goals they thought within themselves to work jointly. Their longing for financial liberation, facilitated them to start off pondering and rethinking their available resources in question.

Even though the seven South Asian states as regards their integration, the prospect of SAARC as an effective body for regional integration continues to be reflected with cynicism. When countries in other regions were trying to minimise their differences, it is disconcerting to see that this region remains trapped in conflict of war, sapping its energy and resources that could be diverted to launching an unpleasant on poverty. In this post-cold war period, and at a time when we are at the threshold of a new century, South Asia should not be out of peace, harmony and development even for a single day. Analysis of differences among the SAARC states and symptomatic of solution is thus a very imperative and well-timed issue.

In relation to forming a forum of SAARC, required guidelines focussing was planned to be placed on the heterogeneity among the countries of South Asians regions which state its effect on the regional integration process in South Asia. There are of course some strong commonalties among the South Asian states, for example, their colonial past, a broadly common attitude towards Western countries, common needs development, common needs to alleviate poverty, some similarity in culture, etc. These similarities could be helpful for the states to minimise their differences. And one most positive aspect is that the member states of SAARC are hopeful about their success. In the paper I will also try to show that, if heterogeneity is greater in South Asia, the regional incorporation will be less effectual. In case those differences can be minimised, greater integration will be possible. Before tentative the specific case of SAARC as a regional amalgamation process, some discussion about the meaning of region and regional integration is necessary.

Regional addition has become a very common way of co-operation among states in present day worldwide relationships. Normally a ‘region’ is an area where some geographically adjacent states join together to achieve their common objectives. As I mentioned earlier, in the present time more or less every nation-state, strong or weak, is a member of a regional system. But there are some states which exist on the borderline between two regions. That is one of the reasons for those states not joining in any regional co-operation arrangements. Although geographical considerations are an important factor for the formation of a region, other factors-for example, social, economic, political, historical, and organisational – are also important. So we can say that a region consists of two or more proximate states and interacting states which have some common ethnic, linguistic, cultural, social, and/or historical bonds, and whose sense of identity is sometimes increased by the actions and attitudes towards those of states external to the region.

The component states of SAARC are physically nearby with each other. These states have somewhat in widespread. For illustration, they have some frequent communal and chronological bonds. These states have common colonial past. Those states (for example Nepal) who were not under colonial rule have also been influenced by that rule owing to geographical proximity with India. There is some cultural commonality among the SAARC states. But where the region ends-for example, on the eastern side, erstwhile Burma, now Myanmar is neither a member of SAARC nor yet of ASEAN. On the western side Afghanistan neither belongs to the Middle East nor to the South Asian group. These states exist on the borderline between two regional systems. Ernst Haas distinct assimilation as a propensity towards the voluntary creation of generously proportioned political units, each of which self-consciously shun the use of force in the relations between the participating units and groups Leon N. Lindberg defines integration as the process whereby states miss out on the desire and ability to conduct foreign and key domestic policies independently of each other, seeking instead to make joint decisions or to delegate the decision making process to new central organs. He also defines integration as the process whereby political actors in several distinct settings are convinced to transfer their opportunity and political performance to a new midpoint. Lindberg provides such explanation in his work on the European neighbourhood. But he dispensed to give an all-inclusive classification about regional integration processes.

Regional Co-operation means the responsibility of answerability for originating regional policies, developing rules and regulations, and for applying these policies to all markets at a regional level, overriding national control. Integration thus requires members of a grouping to cede sovereignty over particular economic functions and activities as well as policies and instruments to an authority or institution which exercises its power at a regional level. Integration thus means formulating and applying policies- for example, regarding trade, exchange, labour, fiscal and monetary policies- at the regional level. Integration may also imply the development of a common currency and a single central bank or monetary authority which regulates the monetary and indirectly the fiscal parameters within which national governments function. While being entirely proficient, integration implies the free movement of all factors of production and technology across boundaries within the region. In its ultimate form of political union, it would require a regional legislature.

There are different schools of thought regarding the methods and approaches to integration. The Federalist school of thought sees integration in legal and institutional terms. For federalists integration is an end-product rather than a process. It stands for a political union among previously sovereign and independent states. Federalists recommend the adoption of their approach on both a regional and a global scale. They consider the anarchic nation-state system to be primarily responsible for war. The functionalist knows that nation-state system is changeable and is the cause of violence divisions, which undermine the real needs and interests of humankind. They tried to give importance on specific tasks of economic and welfare co-operation. This would avoid divisive political debate, but at the same time create a community of interest which would ultimately render national frontiers meaningless. According to the functionalist observation, technical group effort in one sector generates a felt need for functional collaboration in other sectors.

The common route to regional integration is through progressive liberalisation of trade relationships between members of a regional community, which could progress through various stages:

A Preferential Trade Area with lower tariffs; then a Free Trade Area with no tariffs;

A Custom Union with common external tariff useful for external trade;

A Common Market with free progress of all factors of production and constancy in internal exchange rate with full convertibility;

An Economic Union with common currency and a unified monetary policy and a Political Union with unified judicial and legislative process of members’ states.

Alternatively, the term regional co-operation is a slack make-up of integration. It indicates an enthusiasm on the part of countries to work together in attaining regional economic security on the postulation that, in the long run, this self-control end result in enhancing national economic interests and welfare even if national interests might need to be subordinated in the short run.

In light of the above squabble, it is evident that the position of SAARC as a regional co-operation is based on feasible foundation in quest of peace and prosperity of these regions. In December 2008 SAARC will be 20 years old and as such if we take stock of regional co-operation from commencement to present time, we will see that, since inception, even though the organization has been focussed on core issues but from the very beginning core areas were excluded from SAARC agenda, and that position persists to this day. Thus after its hopeful launch, SAARC performances have vegetated and have botched to promote any noteworthy co-operation in the core political and economic areas. On the other hand, in other areas SAARC has recognized number of institutions. For example, in 1988 the SAARC Agricultural Information Centre was established in Dhaka. The Technical Committee on Education (established in 1989) and the Technical Committee on Sports, Arts and Culture (established in 1983) were merged into a single Technical Committee on Education and Culture. SAARC has also conventional the Technical Committee on Environment. The SAARC Meteorological Research Centre has previously been recognized for chipping in information data in this respect. The first meeting of the Technical Committee on Health and Population activities was held on 1984. Important activities undertaken by this committee include the setting up of the SAARC Tuberculosis Centre in Kathmandu in 1992. The SAARC Drug Offences Monitoring Desk (SDOMD) has been established in Colombo to analyse and disseminate information on drug offences, and efforts have been directed for conclusion of regional drug convention and harmonisation and consolidation of national drug laws. The Technical Committee on Rural Development identified priority areas for implementing its programmes on poverty alleviation, employment generation, women development, environment and technology transfer. There are technical committees for Science and Technology; Tourism; Transport and Women Development etc. Core political and economic areas remain absent from their co-operation process. SAARC states have not assigned any responsibility to SAARC to develop rules and regulation, which they can apply for all. They did not ceded part of their sovereignty to their regional body. The SAARC states are working together to achieve their regional interest on the assumption that, in the long run, this will result in achieving harmony and welfare in the region. In this respect we can term SAARC as a mere regional organisation for co-operation .SAARC has a number of developments in its progression of incorporation. For example, the South Asian states signed the SAPTA (South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement) on 11 April 1993 in Dhaka during their seventh summit. SAPTA is working towards removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. In May 1997 at the ninth SAARC Summit, member states agreed steadily to relax trade barriers until a Free Trade Area (FTA) is established by the year 2001. So the eventual goal of the South Asian states is to establish South Asian Free Trade Area. Though the official name of organisation is South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, but we can consider it as a South Asian integration process. If South Asian states can minimise the possibility of war among themselves, then the word ‘integration’ will be more appropriate for SAARC.

In view of the above discussion it is obvious that the fundamental demarcation in respect of religious way of life sometime creates serious irritant in South Asia. In terms of number of followers, Hinduism has the leading number of followers, with Islam and Buddhism being the two other major faiths. Although a strong secular movement was launched by the Indian and numerous other South Asian governments, it failed to minimise cultural gaps among the various religions. Most prominent clashes between religious groups look like to involve Hindus and Muslims, or one Muslim faction against another, or Sikhs and Hindus, or Buddhists and Hindus. Relations between the two most powerful states of South Asia, India and Pakistan, have been greatly convoluted by religious factors.

During the Cold War, Latin America, Southern Africa and even the dynamic Southeast Asia hardly figured in international politics. Studies on the Cold War politics and the scramble for security in other parts of the world, particularly in the industrial West mostly overlooked the Third World countries and their quest for security. Even after the Cold War ended, Third World security predicaments remain because of the existence of a very complex balance of power that is often precariously balanced. The current phase of the globalisation, as Kenichi Ohmae (1990; 1993; 1996) puts it, has become a ‘borderless world’ where economic forces and free trade have become the main theme of international relations. In such a situation, the Third World countries often have to play awkward balancing acts. This article is therefore an attempt to look into this Third World security predicament at three analytical levels – the international system, the regional and state levels. This analysis is done using three important regional organisations in the Third World – ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC. This is an attempt to reveal how security politics and regional integration are interrelated and intertwined in the Third World. In the process, it will contribute to our understanding of how these regional organisations cope and deal with security issues with the current phase of globalisation.

What is security?

Security in international politics is a moot point, and it remains so to date. For a very long time, the traditional thinking had been that “the state is and should be about security, with emphasis on military and political security” (Buzan et al 1998:37). This notion of security has been prevalent since the Westphalian peace of 1648 where the concept of the nation state was created. This view became more important during the twentieth Century with the two World Wars and the consequent Cold War that lasted for almost five decades. Following the end of the Cold War, the scope of security in academic studies has been changed with many “wideners” who argued that the subject needed to embrace a more varied range of threats and move beyond the traditional emphasis on the military aspects of security for the state. Such changes in perception have created debates between those still subscribing to the traditional thinking and those who wanted to “widen” the definition of security so as to include other nonmilitary threats too.[1]

Security in the Third World

Since 1945, many of the most significant threats to state security have become internal rather than external, a shift which has profound consequences for international relations. As Holsti (1996: 15) writes, security between states in the Third World “has become increasingly dependent on security within those states.” For the Third World states, security does not simply refer to the external military threat dimension but also to the whole range of the state’s existence which includes internal security and nation building; secure systems of food, health, economy, trade and environment (Thomas 1987). The Third World states, like all states are concerned with their own security, internal and external. But as they are mostly poor, underdeveloped and postcolonial, Third World states inherited their colonial economies, political structures and security perceptions. Some are pre-modern and weak, characterised by low levels of sociopolitical cohesion and poorly developed structures of government. The securities of these states are therefore shaped by these characteristics. To the authoritarian governments of the Third World, security also means countering internal subversion and keeping internal order at any cost.

The next three sections will deal with security politics and regional integration in the Third World mostly through the different dimensions of security at three analytical levels – the international, regional and state levels. Where appropriate, the security dimensions will include the military, political, economic, societal and environmental sectors.[2] Besides these dimensions, security concerns are located in both the external and internal dimensions. As mentioned before, this analysis will be done looking at how the three regional organisations of ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC deal with security issues.

The International System

The Cold War Period

The politics of the Cold War had dominated the working of the international system for a major part of the second half of the twentieth century. It is interesting to note that while the Third World states were unimportant in the global balance of power and hardly figured in the security agendas of Western policy-makers, the prevailing bipolar system and the preoccupation of the Western powers with the spread of communism and its containment exacerbated conflicts in the Third World. While conflicts in the core and strategic areas of Europe and North America were avoided, the Cold War turned out to be a hot one in and for the Third World states where the superpowers played the game of international politics. The Vietnam War was the clearest result and example.

The intensity of the Vietnam War and the increasing involvement of the Soviet Union and the growing threat to regional security led ASEAN to adopt a nonaligned policy. The Vietnam War continued to strain members’ relationships and threaten regional security. Communist victories in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam worsened the situation. By 1976, ASEAN was forced to contemplate being an association with security as its predominant concern. Thus at the February 1976 Bali Summit Meeting, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and the Declaration of ASEAN Concord were signed. They agreed to “The right of every state to lead its national existence; free from external interference, subversion or coercion; non interference in the internal affairs of one another; settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means; and the renunciation of the threat or use of force” (ASEAN 1976). The reunification of Vietnam, the worsening internal security problems and the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia led to another security dilemma for ASEAN during the mid-1970s. Negotiations followed during which time ASEAN’s importance as a regional organisation to settle disputes and maintain security was widely recognised. Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia in 1989 and the Vietnam War was concluded by the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement.

Meanwhile, the southern African security problem during the Cold War was exacerbated by the presence of apartheid South Africa, a regime which also adopted a strong anticommunist policy and came out harshly against any socialist orientations. Angola and Mozambique, having chosen this path, were particularly targeted. During the 1950s and more in the 1960s, the South African Defence Force (SADF) developed a national security doctrine (Total Strategy) stressing the psychological, social and economic means to target its enemies, in addition to the military means. The South African government established a framework for implementing policies which completely cut across all sectors of public life, called the National Security Management System. Louis Nel, then South African Deputy Foreign Minister, said in November 1982, “The Kremlin has actively supported the southern African Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movements in their quest for power in Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. The Kremlin is currently backing SWAPO, the South African ANC and the South African Communist Party who operate against SWA/Namibia and the Republic of South Africa, respectively” (Quoted in Hanlon 1986: 8). Using such words had two advantages – the policy of apartheid could be seen as communist-inspired and it demanded Western support as it was a bulwark against the communist onslaught (Hanlon 1986: 8).

The United States, being a great power, recognises Latin America as being under its sphere of influence. Beginning mostly with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 when the US President James Monroe warned the European powers to keep out of the Americas, the US has, in effect, reserved the right to exert influence and interfere in Latin America. This has been a policy factor for the US as well as many Latin American countries for a long time. The Cold War also cut Latin American countries (LAC) from the possibility of relations with other regions. As a result, many of the countries of the region lessened their dependence on the superpowers. It was the UN Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) that shaped much of the South American regionalism. This can be seen as an indirect opposition to the superpower hegemony. Contrary to Europe, this part of the world has been relatively peaceful until the 1960s when the Cold War became a hot one with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. While several interstate wars erupted after the 1960s, the real security problem for Latin America was the Cold War, with the countries of the region progressively becoming an American zone of influence. Since the 1960s, the United States had increasingly intervened militarily in its own backyard and installed puppet governments.

The Cold War also ushered a dangerous arms and nuclear race. In the face of such a threat, in 1971, a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Declaration was signed by member states of ASEAN. This Declaration can be seen as a reaction to the emerging multipolarity of the region with the USSR, US, China and Japan as the principal powers influencing events in Southeast Asia. Likewise, through the Foz de Iguazu Declaration of November 1985, Brazil and Argentina declared that their nuclear programs were to be for peaceful purposes only. Such action on the part of Third World states can be seen as their desire to keep away from the Cold War politics of interferences and aggressions from the superpowers that destabilise the Third World regions.

Post-Cold War Period

The decline of the Soviet Union and the change in the bipolar world had more immediate effects for the Third World. It witnessed the emergence of the United States as the sole superpower which has become even more powerful with time.

Politically, the end of the Cold War resulted in the removal of support for many Third World states and movements. The collapse of the Soviet Union has discredited the alternative model and ideology represented by the Soviet Union. This in turn affected many movements and supports in many Third World states including members of ASEAN, MERCOSUR and SADC. Economically, it has also resulted in changes in the direction of trade and businesses. The military dimension also produces the same result of redirection of arms trade, transfers and dealings. The post Cold War world, epitomised by the great power influence of the US, its involvement in Third World problems and conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.), besides the complex web of international relations has and will continue to have an impact on Third World security and their regional integration processes. For the Third World countries, security concern has become more multifarious after the Cold War as it has become subject to more complex pulls and pressures.

Post-9/11 Period

The world entered into a new period of insecurity and threats after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the events that followed. Soon after, the United States launched a movement and led a coalition to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The attacks also led to the introduction of “anti-terrorism” legislation in many countries including the United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe. This has brought to a close the transitional phase that followed the end of the Cold War (Wenger and Zimmerman 2003: 1).

For a long time, states and regional organisations had ignored and did not regard terrorism as a priority. While this is true for most states, it is particularly more so in the Third World countries where poverty, diseases, domestic conflicts and hunger had been seen as the immediate issues to be addressed. But this threat had been becoming more a problem for every state mostly beginning from the bombings in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and Casablanca in 1999, Bali bombings, attacks in Britain, Egypt, Yemen, Argentina in 1992 and 1994 and other threats and attacks in all parts of the world. Terrorism can no longer be treated as a Western concern. It has become an international security issue where regional organisation must provide a coherent response so that the integration process and inter and intra regional trade will not be hampered by such threats.

The Regional Level

When ASEAN was formed, despite their policy of nonalignment, some members still had official alignments with the US and Great Britain. The fact was that member countries were solely responsible for their own security. Thus, much of the political and strategic alliances with other countries took place outside ASEAN’s structures. After its establishment, ASEAN was seen by the communist bloc as nothing more than a “western-inspired military alliance directed against China and the Indo-Chinese states” (Dixon 1999: 118). True, during much of the Cold War and after, China has been viewed as a major security threat by ASEAN members, which is why most ASEAN states want to see the US remain as a regional power. Many of them feel that US disengagement will create a power vacuum that would be filled by either China or Japan. But ASEAN members’ relation with China has improved considerably since the end of the Cold War. This new relationship with China was reflected in the ASEAN Meeting of 1997. It was held in Beijing. This new understanding was because the ASEAN leaders began to recognise the political and economic benefits of closer ties with China easily outweigh any military risks.

The end of the apartheid regime in South Africa, the formation of the SADC and its attempt to reconcile differences between erstwhile states of divergent policies and regimes were significant developments for southern African security. At the Gaborone Summit of 1996 of the SADC heads of government and state, the SADC Organ on Politics, Defense and Security (OPDS) was launched. For the first time since the SADC was established, the region now had stable regional security architecture. The Inter-State Defense and Security Committee (ISDSC) which had been established in 1994 was incorporated into the newly found OPDS. In 2003, a Mutual Defence Pact was signed by SADC members. This was an official commitment by SADC to function as a collective defence organisation. While “International terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction… play as good as no role at all in the region” (Steinhilber 2006:11), the problem of HIV/AIDS is a big concern for all African states. This creates instability and as a result affects regional integration. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has been a major factor and issue that raises a big concern for southern African states at present. This problem is clearly reflected in the statement of Prega Ramsamy (2001: 35), the former Secretary-General of the SADC when he said that, “the [HIV/AIDS] pandemic continues to escalate in our Community. Available statistics indicate that the rates of infected people in the region could be as high as one in five in some member states. At least four member states have rates higher than 400 per 100,000 population indicating the magnitude of the problem.” The SADC members have committed themselves to collectively fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic in an urgent manner (SADC 2003).

Improved relations, the changed security agendas and the process of democratisation in Latin America since the late 1980s and early 1990s have led to a newly shared perception of a vision for Latin America. The Treaty of Asunción established MERCOSUR in March 1991. With the admission of Bolivia and Chile, MERCOSUR expanded to represent 230 million inhabitants, that is, 45 per cent of the population of Latin America. Though the countries of the southern cone do not face much external threats, closer economic ties and open borders often cause security problems for their neighbours. As the military has taken new tasks, the problem is whether a balance is maintained between member countries in matters of security responsibilities and management. Argentina and Brazil are also opposed to the idea of the institutionalisation of the conference of American defense ministers. This explicitly implies that they are against a continental security system. Though they explain that the countries of the continent are too different, it can also imply that the two most powerful states in the Southern Cone desire to wield their influence on other members of the MERCOSUR and on the functioning of the regional integration arrangement itself. Paraguay and Uruguay favour a joint manoeuvre and want an advisory body for this purpose because they are afraid that Argentina and Brazil could use their nuclear technology for their own ends despite nuclear treaties. Brazil is also said to have its own nuclear project. Chile meanwhile opted to have an autonomous defense policy. On the economic front, the MERCOSUR countries are yet to achieve security – the Brazilian Real devaluation of 1999 and other financial crises in Argentina and Brazil being cases in point. These crises have even led the MERCOSUR members to question its existence.

The State Level

An analysis of Third World security at the state level encounters enormous problems because of the vast dimensions of security and differences in the perceptions and conditions in these states. Security for these states always goes beyond the common issue of the state’s ability to protect its resources and borders and involves the dimensions of food, environment, economy, elites, society, culture and the legitimacy and survival of the states and regimes. In other words, the whole dimensions of military, political, economic, societal and environmental securities are all equally important for the Third World. In recent years, the problem of transnational crime, drug trafficking and terrorism have also added to the security dilemma of these states.

Firstly, the role played by the armed forces is vital for regimes and governments in ensuring and maintaining their sovereignty, ideology and legitimacy. This political role of the military in the Third World coupled with the weakness of government institutions have led armed groups and the paramilitary forces to gain more power and influence. In the case of Thailand, military coups after military coups have happened because of the extremely powerful political position that the military enjoyed. In Indonesia too, the longevity of regimes depended on controlling the military. The military has also been used to gain more power even illegitimately. This in turn leads to the use of more military might against opposition forces leading to the deaths of thousands. This type of military adventurism and use of the military is particularly widespread in Africa. For example, in August 1998, Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia decided to take part in an intervention operation in the DRC to fight against rebel forces. This intervention happened based on the request of President Laurent Kabila who came to power through military force. In most parts of the world, the militarisation of these problems and the new role that the military began to play ironically led to more insecurity for the civilian population. Such roles as played by the military could bring them into contact with the civilian population and increase the chances of human rights violations. It could also bring them into direct confrontation with the people (Pion-Berlin 2000). But as a whole, the political role that the military played had immensely reduced since the process of democratisation began.

In addition to the secessionist movements, ethnic violence and internal unrest, the states of ASEAN are susceptible to economic crises and are economically unstable. Monetary security has not been achieved. For example, the Thai economy underwent a severe economic crisis during the 1970s and early 1980s that led the economy to the verge of collapse. Several reforms were initiated under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank through which the Thai economy slowly recovered. The Asian Crisis of the late 1990s also had severe effects on the economies of these states.

Environmentally, over exploitation of resources and the limited concern paid to the environment has now been the subject of international dispute and one in which regional organisations are now more involved. As the ECLA (2001) stated, “The environment has played an important role in the production of resource-based commodities as well as in the provision of food and other amenities for the population. Nevertheless, an integral relationship between economic and social development and the environment did not form the basis for development strategies and policies pursued in the Caribbean. Since the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, the importance of environment to trade and development has become generally accepted. However, developing countries have been concerned about proposals to bring environment and labour standards within the purview of the WTO. This was part of the reason for the failure to launch a new round of trade negotiations in Seattle in 2000. Environmental issues were again on the agenda at the Doha Ministerial meeting in November 2001.”

Integration and Security

From what has been said above, security and its perception, for many of the Third World states continue to be the main source of strain for any regional integration movements. During the Cold War, the international system had created a condition that led to the emergence of internal strife and, sometimes, wars. Such ill effects destroyed the thin fabric that holds Third World countries in their endeavour to come together.

The very nature of the ASEAN Way of noninterference, multilateral consultations can also be modified to a more useful and practical way. Instead of ignoring the underlying problems and skirting the issues, they must be directly addressed. Of course, sovereignty of a member should be respected, but as a regional organisation, it is also its responsibility to effectively deal with a member’s problems in a constructive way. Linked to all of these is the problem that ASEAN regionalism faced. It lacked in capacity and resources. These limitations are augmented by charter constraints which accord a high priority to principles like sovereignty and noninterference. In such a situation, prospects for cooperation are further reduced. Even as ASEAN had “come to be regarded as one of the most successful experiments in regionalism in the developing world” (Acharya 1993: 3), ASEAN Way or ASEAN’s informal process of noninterference has come under severe criticism. Because of these reasons, some have commented that its “central purpose seemed to consist in concealing fundamental differences of view among its members under the guise of consensus and non-interference” and that “The ASEAN Way” did not deal with underlying tensions; it simply ignored them” (Jones and Smith 2002: 103, 108).

The Southern African scenario was quite different from that of ASEAN. For many years, the SADCC member states had faced the brunt of South Africa’s ‘Total Strategy’ of destabilisation and blackmail. From the 1990s, new hopes emerged within the region. But hope and reality often go their separate ways. Therefore, for the SADC to continue as a strong regional organisation, the SADC Organ on Politics, Defense and Security Cooperation (OPDSC) should not be allowed to function as its predecessor, the OPDS. Members’ suspicion of each other can be removed through a series of confidence building measures, and the adoption of a system of shared leadership. For the OPDSC to be effective, it needs to adopt a concept of security that takes into account military, political, social, economic and environmental issues. Mutual suspicion still remains in southern Africa that led to diverse perception of security. Southern African states have not yet shared common values and visions too. An optimistic outcome that can be ascertained from the Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation and the Strategic Indicative Plan for the Organ (SIPO) is that the SADC seem to have abandoned the narrow view of security that was prevalent during the Cold War period. Its agenda now includes both the politico-military threats (inter-state war, internal war, large-scale human rights abuses, war crimes against humanity, genocide, coups d’état and other forms of illegal seizure of power, poor governance and abuse of power, dangers of instability accompanying political transition periods and attacks on democratic institutions) and non-military threats (food security, mass movements of refugees, illegal migrants, humanitarian and natural disasters, disease, poverty and underdevelopment and ecological degradation) (Hammerstad 2005: 7). Another major issue for southern Africa in recent times has been the problem of AIDS/HIV. Interaction and cooperation between people, individual, parties, leaders and government will help a great deal. It is now up to the states to gather pace and start the process of confidence building and cooperation in the military, political, social, economic and cultural fields.

By the 1990s, many of the erstwhile interstate conflicts in Latin America (Argentina-Chile, Peru-Ecuador, El Salvador-Honduras, Chile-Peru) had been diplomatically resolved. The policies of rapprochements followed both by Brazil and Argentina had also paid dividends leading to the eventual formation of MERCOSUR, one of the biggest economic groupings in the world, eventually representing 45% of the population of Latin America. Democratic institutions in Latin America being relatively new, they are weak in their structures paving the way for nonstate actors to wreak havoc (Steinhilber 2006: 7). The internal problems therefore include drugs trafficking, arms trafficking, organised crime, environment, natural disasters, social deprivation, transnational crime, guerrilla organisations, state dysfunction and counterrevolutionary violent activities that in many cases lead to militarisation and confrontations between groups. The key risk factors for Latin America after the Cold War are associated with lack of governance, instability, and weak democratic institutionalisation (Aravena 2004: 6). Let not the mere formation of MERCOSUR be the end. Instead of relying on mere rhetoric and ideologies, the member states must work collectively in a cooperative spirit and tackle these enormous problems head on.

As a whole, the regions of Southeast Asia, Southern Africa and South America have peculiar kinds of security concerns different from the Western idea of security. For them, security does not alone imply being safe from external threat and having a huge stockpile or arsenal; it also means being secured from internal subversion. It also means regime maintenance and continuance, secure systems of food, health, trade and development. All these problems are interlinked. These problems challenge the legitimacy of governments which in turn results in ineffective governments incapable of ensuring security for the people. But at the same time, no single organisation or model has managed to establish strong governance for these regions to achieve these goals satisfactorily. To create a new organisation to address these issues is out of the question. The existing ASEAN, SADC and MERCOSUR organisations can lead the way in improving relations while at the same time seeking ways to ensure security for the Third World states, provided that these organisations become more proactive and sincere in their activities.

END NOTES

[1] To read more on this, see Ullman (1983); Hirsch and Doyle (1977); Meadows et al (1972); Ruggie (1982); Walt (1991); Mearcheimer (1990); Ayoob (1997); Peterson and Sebenius (1992); Lynn-Jones and Miller (1995); Buzan (1991a); Buzan (1991b); Buzan et al (1998) and Wirtz (2002).

[2] This is derived from Buzan et al (1998)

REFERENCES

Acharya, Amitav (1993), A New Regional Order in South-East Asia: ASEAN in the Post-Cold War Era, Adelphi Paper 279, Oxford: Oxford University Press for International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Aravena, Francisco Rojas (2004), Security on the American Continent: Challenges, Perceptions and Concepts, Briefing Papers, May 2004, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Colombia.

ASEAN (1976), Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, Bali, 24 February 1976.

ASEAN (2002), Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, 2002.

Axworthy, Lloyd (1999), Human Security: Safety for People in a Changing World, Concept Paper, The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 29 April 1999 [Online: web] Accessed 13 July 2006, URL: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreignnp/HumanSecurity/secur-e.htm.

Ayoob, Mohammed (1997), “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective,” in Keith Krause and Michael Williams (eds.) Critical Security Studies, Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Bearman, Sidney et al. (eds.) (2001), “The Americas”, Strategic Survey 2000-2001, London: IISS, 2001, pp. 55-94.

Buzan, Barry (1991a), People, States and Fears: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post Cold War Era, 2nd Edition, Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner.

Buzan, Barry (1991b), “New Patterns of Global Security in the 21st Century,” International Affairs, Vol. 67 (3), pp. 431-451.

Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde (1998), Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, Co.: Lynne Rienner.

Dixon, Chris (1999), “Regional Integration in Southeast Asia”, in Jean Grugel and Wil Hout (eds) (1999), Regionalism Across the North-South Divide: State Strategies and Globalisation, London Routledge.

ECLA (2001), Trade, Environment and Development, Implications for Caribbean Countries, Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean, Report G.669, 2001.

Hammerstad, Anne (2005), “People, States and Regions,” in Anne Hammerstad (ed.) People, States and Regions: Building a collaborative security regime in Southern Africa, The South African Institute of International Affairs, pp. 1-21.

Hanlon, Joseph (1986), Beggar Your Neighbours, London: CIIR, James Currey.

Hirsch, F and Doyle M (1977), “Politisation in the World Economy: Necessary Conditions for an International Economic Order,” in F. Hirsh, Doyle M. and E. Morse (eds.) Alternatives to Monetary Disorder, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 11-66.

Holsti, Kalevi J. (1996), The State, War and the State of War, University of British Columbia, Vancouver: Cambridge Studies in International Relations Series No. 51.

Jones, David M. and Michael C. R. Smith (2002) ‘ASEAN’s Immitation Community,’ Orbis, 93-109.

Lynn-Jones, Stephen and Sean Miller (1995), Global Dangers: Changing Dimensions of International Security, Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Malik, J. Mohan (1992), “Patterns of Conflict and the Security Environment in the Asia-Pacific Region: the Post-Cold War Era”, in Malik, J. Mohan et al. Asian Defence Policies: Great Powers and Regional Powers (Book I), Geelong, Deakin University Press, 1992, pp. 33-52.

Matthews, Jessica (1989), “Redefining Security” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 68 (2) pp. 162-177.

Meadows, D et al (1972), The Limits of Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Report on the Predicament of Mankind, New York: Potomac Associates.

Mearsheimer, John (1990), “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War,” The Atlantic Monthly, 226 (2), pp. 35-50.

Ohmae, Kenichi (1993) “The Rise of the Region State,” Foreign Affairs, Spring

Ohmae, Kenichi (1996) The End of the Nation State, New York: Touchstone

Ohmae, Kenichi (1990) The Borderless World, New York: Harper Collins

Peterson, Peter and James Sebenius (1992), “The Primacy of the Domestic Agenda,” in Graham Allison and Gregory Treverton (eds.) Rethinking America’s Security: Beyond Cold War to New World Order, New York: WW Norton and Co. pp. 57-93.

Pion-Berlin, David (2000), “Will Soldiers Follow? Economic Integration and Regional Security in the Southern Cone”, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 42 no. 1, Spring 2000, pp. 43-69.

Ramsamy, Prega (2001), “SADC: The Way Forward,” in Christopher Clapham, Gregg Mills, Anna Morner and Elizabeth Sidiropolous (eds.) Regional Integration in Southern Africa: Comparative Perspectives, Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs.

Ruggie, J. G. (1982), “International Regimes, Transactions and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” International Organisation, Vol. 35 (2), pp. 379-415.

SADC (2003), SADC Declaration on HIV/AIDS, Maseru, Lesotho, 4 July 2003.

Steinhilber, Jochen (2006), “Bound to Cooperate? Security and Regional Cooperation,” Occasional Papers, September, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

Thomas, Caroline (1987), In Search of Security: The Third World in International Relations, Boulder, Colorado: Rienner.

Ullman, Richard (1983), “Redefining Security” International Security, Vol. 8 (1) pp. 129-153.

Wæver, Ole et al (eds) (1993), Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, London: Pinter.

Walt, Stephen (1991), “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35 (2), pp. 211-239.

Wenger, Andreas and Doron Zimmerman (2003), International Relations: From the Cold War to the Globalized World, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Wirtz, James (2002), “A New Agenda for Security and Strategy,” in John Baylis et al (eds.) Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Asia’s New Multilateralism: Cooperation, Competition, a

US $96.94 End Date: Monday Oct-26-2009 16:55:41 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $96.94 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Regional Cooperation and Integration in Asia, , Very Go

US $19.99 End Date: Friday Oct-30-2009 19:49:54 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $19.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Cool, arent they?

Cooperation or Conflict in the Taiwan Strait? (Asia in

US $4.88 End Date: Tuesday Oct-20-2009 7:31:50 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $4.88 Buy it now | Add to watch list

NEW Regional Cooperation in South Asia and Southeast…

US $44.62 End Date: Thursday Oct-22-2009 20:41:59 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $44.62 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Cool, arent they?