Submitted for: The ASEAN International Relations Student Conference (AIRSC) held by Budi Luhur University Jakarta, October, 26-30, 2008

Human Security in the New ASEAN: Securitization of Agenda and Norm Internalization


Department of International Relations Padjadjaran University Bandung-Indonesia

October 2008

The end of 2007 saw a critical point in the history of ASEAN. The signing of ASEAN Charter marked a point of departure in a way that it drives ASEAN to be a more rules-based organization focused more on the people. The people-centrism is a goal that coincides with increasing demand of paradigm shift in ASEAN’s conception of security. The state-centric nature of ASEAN’s security conception coupled by the perpetuation of non-interference norm was largely criticized on the ground that it allows ASEAN members to turn blind eye on gross human rights violations and political repression, to name a few, taking place the region. It is also seen as inadequate to address new security threats that besiege the most vulnerable groups in the region. Human security is found among the new approaches to security seeking to move the focus away from national security to security of individuals. Although the concept itself is largely criticized, human security issues have gained more prominence in the region, thanks to civilsociety organizations’ efforts in consistently pushing them into the organization’s agenda. Although still in the search of the best formula to balance state and human security, ASEAN has shown progress, however slow, in recognizing the need to move beyond its ‘old-faithful,’ albeit comprehensive, conception of security. The main task of this paper is to examine the way through which human security agenda is finding a place in the regional security discourse by using securitization approach. Furthermore, it wishes to examine the state of human security in ASEAN’s security discourse in terms of norm internalization and the potential changes that may take place if the organization finally adheres to such norm. The first task is carried out by addressing the speech acts taking place in the discourse of ASEAN Regional Forum. The second task is handled by addressing the role of civil-society organizations in promoting human security in terms of norm internalization and the way ASEAN responds to it. Finally, the latest task is handled by using insights from normative institutionalism theory. This paper contends that human security agenda has made its way to enter the regional security discourse, albeit not explicitly framed in human security terms. This means that securitization of human security agenda has been taking place, although not all the issues in the agenda get securitized. However, as a norm, human security continues to be denied internalization despite its success in reaching the norm cascade stage. Formal acceptance of and adherence to the norm is impeded by the ambivalence of member states trying to uphold the old established norms in order to preserve their own interests or avoid risking the organization’s cohesion and acting capacity. Following the inclusion of human security agenda in the regional security discourse, there are implications on the regional governance while the norm internalization, if eventually takes place, may result in change in member states’ behaviour. Regarding the Charter, the spirit of people-centrism has not been followed by ASEAN’s willingness to internalize human-centric norms while human-centric agenda continues to find its way in its security discourse. Key words: securitization, human security, norm internalization, communicative action, speech act, security discourse


Human Security in the New ASEAN: Securitization of Agenda and Norm Internalization
Anggalia Putri Permatasari Student of Department of International Relations Padjadjaran University Introduction Since November, 20, 2007, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has retained the privilege of having a constitution, marked by the signing of the ASEAN Charter on the 13th ASEAN Summit held in Singapore. It was historic in a sense that ASEAN finally braced itself to adhere to one prime legally-binding agreement that gives it a distinctive legal personality. The content and spirit of the Charter is no less remarkable, especially in the light of strong criticisms spurted at the organization concerning its efficacy in tackling new challenges emerging in the post-Cold War era. One crucial angle of the criticisms points at ASEAN’s lack of political will and mechanism in dealing with member states involved in human rights violation, especially in the wake of Myanmar ‘s violent way of handling protesters in the country not so long ago. Even before that, most of ASEAN member states were given bad credits for their human rights record.1 Although one cannot argue that human rights concerns are the prime factors that pushed ASEAN member states to craft the Charter in the way they did, it is hard to deny that it was partially aimed to answer the critics conveying doubts on ASEAN’s efficacy and even relevance. One of the criticisms that the Charter might want to answer (although not necessarily silence) is the statements made by various elements of international society, especially civil-society organizations (CSOs) that ASEAN had ignored the people’s point of view in its build-up and had been an elitist organization focusing mainly and solely on nation-state’s or regime’s well-being at the expense of the people’s. In other words, ASEAN has been criticized as being overly state-centric in its doctrines and mechanisms of various sectors (notably in the sectors of politics, economy, and security), a condition that might have served the organization well during the Cold War era but that is now seen as obsolete, even dangerous. ASEAN’s state-centrism in security sector is striking because it is inextricably linked to the fundamental norm that have been upholding the

For this notion, one can consult human right watch at


the 1997 financial crisis that left the region shambling opened the door to a possible rethinking of the regional security discourse. disregarding the positive developments made by the organization in institutional terms. 3 Ibid.2 However. it was natural to assume that security of the people in each member state was automatically secured when security of the state was intact. Adding to significance. Therefore. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. namely the 9/11 World Trade Organization terrorist attack which she claimed has turned regional security discourse back to its state-centric nature. she mentioned another tipping point that countermanded it. national security was seen primarily as a guarantor of regional security while state was seen as the provider of security for its people.” Asian Perspective. 155-189.organization’s existence and guarding its cohesion for more than four decades. Vol. 28 No 3 (2004). being the norm of non-interference. 4 . The fact that member states of ASEAN were incapacitated to protect their people from economic disruptions. is finding a place in the regional security discourse and practice. therefore formally popularized it. ASEAN’s approach to security was built upon principles born amid the Cold War predicament. The region’s pursuit of domestic and regional stability through economic development put the state as the dominant actor and main referent object of security. It also whishes to inquire human security in 2 Melly Caballero-Anthony. The notion of regional security could not be separated from and was in fact a function of national or domestic security and stability. pp. Nevertheless. Interstate relation within the region was given the utmost consideration due its direct impact on regional stability. gave way to voices demanding a shift of security focus from the state to the individuals. ASEAN’s treatment of the paradigm continues to be in question.3 Human security has travelled a quite long journey since 1994 when United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) first engaged in promoting the concept through its annually-published Human Development Report. voices demanding ASEAN to change its way of ‘handling the business’ finally made their way to be heard and seriously dealt with. as a function of their failure in saving the national economies. However. Melly Caballero-Anthony in fact has marked the 1997 financial crisis as one tipping point where human security found the road smoother. divided for analytical purpose into human security as an agenda and human security as a norm.. This paper therefore seeks to examine the ways in which human security. Following the logic.

statements of ASEAN and ASEAN Regional Forum.” International Security. Canada’s.humansecuritygateway. speeches. exactly. and normative institutionalism. 4 Roland Paris.5 The popularity of this concept is propelled by at least two factors. Roland Paris once argued that: “Human security is like sustainable development-everyone is for it.g. with some caveats that will be addressed later.” Asian Perspective. Canada’s Foreign Policy Directions. Concerning the first task. securitization approach. theoretical and conceptual framework consisting of human security. Vol. For purposes of structure. human security paradigm continues to evolve in the study and practice of security and has informed many policymaking agendas of governments and international organizations. The second task will be dealt with using the lens of normative institutionalism focusing on norms’ life-cycle. is being studied. human security has been a vocal point in Japan’s. and Thailand’s foreign policy. 5 .terms of norm internalization and address the potential change following human security inclusion in the regional security discourse.4 However. (2) the securitization of human security agenda (3) human security in terms of norm internalization. 155-189. ambiguous. Despite its great appeal.. remarks. the paper will be divided into five parts. including analysis of formal documents (such as the Charter). quoted in Melly Caballero-Anthony. Existing definitions of human security tend to be extraordinarily expansive and vague. For example. e. 2 (2001). 28 No 3 (2004). 87-102. the first being the emergence of the so called ‘new threats’ to security transcending the national barriers. and distracting the focus of security studies and analysis. and statements made by ASEAN and domestic leaders. and Japan Development Assistance. pp. see also http://www. 26 No. The method used in the inquiry is mainly in the form of document analysis.which provides policymakers with little guidance in the prioritization of competing policy goals and academic little sense of what. Norway’s. analysis comprising four sections: (1) ASEAN’s approach to ending with conclusion. but few people have idea what it means. the concept has been criticized as being too slippery. Vol. despite different emphasis each country makes. beginning with introduction. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework Human Security One can never bee too cautious in dealing with the concept of human security.. 5 See for example Thailand’s Annual Security Outlook. and 4) the potential change. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air. analysis will be carried out by borrowing analytical power of securitization approach. pp.

London: University of Oxford. use.” Centre for Research on Inequality. 9 Since then. but the main referent object of security remained the state. security meant protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states from external military threats. 492. The Globalization of World Politics. pp. "A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. 10 Ibid. therefore speaking of security for the people. 492.6 In other words.8 Traditionally.” (Canberra: Department of International Relations of Australian National University. global warming. “The Renaissance of Security Studies. 9 Loc cit. 13 UNDP..wikipedia. 2007). consult for example John Baylis. 8 For convincing arguments. quoted from http://en. human security “represents a powerful but controversial attempts by sections of the academic and policy community to redefine and broaden the meaning of security.10 However.” International Studies Quarterly. quoted in Anthony Burke.211-39. “Security studies should focus on threat. organized transnational crimes. h.. rather than of states or governments (regimes). and Patricia Owens (eds. there were attempts to roll back the realm of security studies. 7 Amitav Acharya. 2008). “International and Global Security” in Ibid. Human Development Report 1994. 2007). and ecological dangers like climate change. 12 Op cit. Human Security.2 (1991). Steve Smith. and Ethnicity (CRISE).”11 although the urge received little support. 11 Stephen Walt. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. h. amid the new threats besieging humans’ lives. “What Security Makes Possible: Some Thoughts on Critical Security Studies. 2003.”7 As many writers argue. security studies have been expanded to include for example economic and environmental concerns (in the 70s and 80s). The second factor is the increased opportunity to tackle those new challenges through various institutional mechanisms.. ozone and natural resources depletion and the rising incidence of civil wars and intra-state conflicts. “What Security Makes Possible: Some Thoughts on Critical Security Studies.). 12 Referring to the concept of human security as contained in the 1994 Human Development Report. “Human Security” in John Baylis. which was the essence of national security concept dominating security analysis and policymaking during the Cold War period. and control of military force. the nature of security conception and practice have changed a lot since the Cold War era. as shown by Stephen Walt’s remark in 1991.terrorist attacks. contagious diseases. and Anthony Burke. immediately after the Cold War.” (Canberra: Department of International Relations of Australian National 6 . the scope of human security includes seven areas:13 6 Sabina Alkire. why missing opportunities and wasting potentials to act? According to Amitav Acharya. Working Paper 2. Vol 35 No. The concept of human security challenges the state-centric notion of security by focusing on the individual as the main referent object of security.

safety from chronic threats as hunger. or from predatory adults.. personal violence. diseases. from domestic abuse. Political security — Political security is concerned with whether people live in a society that honors their basic human rights. among them are the following: “Human security can be said to have two main aspects. governments may try to exercise control over ideas and information. jobs.• Economic security — Economic security requires an assured basic income for individuals.” (Japanese Foreign Ministry Official 2002) 7 .. whether from the state or external states. • Food security — Food security requires that all people at all times have both physical and economic access to basic food. Unemployment problems constitute an important factor underlying political tensions and ethnic violence. • Community security — Community security aims to protect people from the loss of traditional relationships and values and from sectarian and ethnic violence. there are many definitions of human • security. it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily life-whether in homes.. And second. Always having been a contested concept. According to a survey conducted by Amnesty International. Such threats can exist at all levels of national income and development. usually from productive and remunerative work or. man-made threats in nature. Human rights violations are most frequent during periods of political unrest.and long-term ravages of nature. Along with repressing individuals and groups.human security can be ensured when the individual is confident of a life free of fear and free of want.” (Sverre Lodgaard 2000) “Human security may be defined as the preservation and protection of the life and dignity of human beings. first. and deterioration of the natural environment. systematic torture. from a publicly financed safety net. Health security — Health security aims to guarantee a minimum protection from diseases and unhealthy lifestyles. Environmental security — Environmental security aims to protect people from the short.. and repression. or in communities. It means. political repression. • • • Personal security — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence. as a last resort.” (UNDP 1994) “The concept of human security had better be confined to freedom from fear of man-made physical violence. also referred to as direct. ill treatment or disappearance was still practiced in 110 countries. from violent individuals and sub-state actors.

therefore requiring us to use a more detailed analysis of language.” (Kofi Annan 2001) “The objective of human security is to safeguard the ‘vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment’”. as David Bosold argued. disease and natural disasters because they are inseparable concepts in addressing the root of human insecurity..uni-marburg. Thus. quoted from 15 Human Security disarmaments.”. but rather a political praxis that is constructed and reconstructed on the basis of daily negotiation and personal encounters at the national and the global level.16 The ambiguity of the term renders us with the need to be cautious in applying the concept of human security in any inquiry. over what threats individuals should be protected from) and over the appropriate mechanisms for responding to these and an active and substantive notion of democracy from the local to the global. and respect for human rights and the rule of law. human security may not be a theoretically-informed. including meaningful participation in the life of the community.15 • Freedom from Want — The school advocates a holistic approach in achieving human security and argues that the threat agenda should be broadened to include hunger. social justice.” (UN Commission on Human Security 2003) “Human security describes ‘a condition of existence’ which entails basic material needs. Development and Human Security The Challenge of Poverty and Inequality. two camps of human security emerged: • Freedom from Fear — This school seeks to limit the practice of human security to protecting individuals from violent conflicts while recognizing that these violent threats are strongly associated with poverty.17 As Buzan et al.php? option=content&task=view&id=24&itemid=59 16 United Nations Development Programme. However. analytically-grounded policy approach... “What is Human Security.. environmental protection. While the UNDP 1994 report originally argued that human security requires attention to both freedom from fear and freedom from want.” retrieved from http://www.pdf 8 . lack of state capacity and other forms of inequities.“Human security. (1998: 24) put it: 14 Caroline Thomas.must encompass economic development.( London and Sterling: VA: Pluto Press.”Global Governance.” http://www. Human Development Report 1994 17 David Bosold. and the underlying speech acts. divisions have gradually emerged over the proper scope of that protection (e. “(Re-)Constructing Canada’s Human Security Agenda. human dignity. discourse.wikipedia. 2000).” (Caroline Thomas 2000)14 The above definitions illustrate debates concerning human security.humansecurityreport. democratization.g.

for analytical purposes. Consequently. Ole Weaver. and Jaap de Wilde. securitization is located with the realm of political argument and discursive legitimation. and ethics. The second is human security as a norm.html 9 . The school. The first is human security as an agenda. has succeeded in providing an alternative to the mainstream security conception in a way that it broadened the terrain of security studies as to include at least five sectors of security (see Buzan. is part of explorations of the role of argument. developed by the Copenhagen School. Securitization One of the most prominent new perspectives toward security is the so called Copenhagen School. political participation. environmental degradation. extreme poverty.allacademic. diseases. which means that when we talk about human security. Treating security as a speech act allows a significant broadening of security agenda beyond the state and military security. and Fear). The Copenhagen School treats security as the outcome of specific social process in which issues become treated as security issues through speech acts. civil wars. By understanding security as a speech act. Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998). States. pioneered by the work of Barry Buzan. action. but the narrow understanding of speech act limits the analysis. Speech acts do not simply convey information about existing security situations. stressing the need to embrace societal security.“the meaning of a concept lies in its usage and is not something we can define analytically or philosophically according to what would be ‘best’. People. etc. this paper adopts the broader conception of human security. the actor moves an issue into a specific sphere by uttering 'security'. meaning that the concept will be treated as a socially-enforced set of rules constraining actions of actors. also known as the ‘freedom from want’ school. but they are acts of themselves: saying something is doing something. The meaning lies not in what people consciously think the concept means but in how they implicitly use it in some ways and not others. and provided the study with an analytical tool to examine how an issue is brought into security realm. political repression. this paper divides human security into two analytical categories. Securitization theory.” Mindful of that.18 18 Constructing Security through Communicative Action” http://www. we talk about a list of items or issues pertaining to human security. such as concerns about human rights.

”21 A securitizing actor by stating that a particular referent object is threatened in its existence claims a right to extraordinary measures to ensure the referent objects’ survival. Since agreement rests on common convictions. retrieved from http://www. 20 Ibid. 20 As mentioned earlier. That is the meaning of security. we are witnessing a case of securitization. The issue is then moved out of the sphere of normal politics into the realm of emergency politics. Ultimately security rests. Security is a social construct and must be analyzed as such. therefore. “From Liminars to Others: Securitization Through Myths. any chosen referent object. where it can be dealt with swiftly and without the normal (democratic) rules and regulations of policy making.The Copenhagen School thereby rejects security as something objectively “given.pdf.” June 16. 17. that alone by uttering ‘security’ something is being done. 21 Ole Wæver. ISA Conference Montreal March 2004.”19 Reaching understanding on securitization is considered to be a process of reaching agreement among actors. But anything can be made into a referent object. 18 the main argument of securitization theory is that security is a speech act. For security this means that it has no longer any given (pre-existing) meaning but that it can be anything a securitizing actor says it is.”22 19 Karsten Friis. quoted in Rita Taureck. not with the objects of the subjects.libertysecurity. Copenhagen New Schools in Security Theory and the Origins: between Core and Periphery.Bringing Together Securitization Theory and Normative Critical Security Studies. “Positive and Negative Securitization .” Peace and Conflict Studies. traditionally the state. Because threats are not some 'real' phenomena that exist out there. Paris. among the subjects. as the definition of the situation proposed by the speaker is confirmed. retrieved from http://critical. Aberystwyth. A referent object is thus what is considered to be existentially threatened by the securitizing actor.doc 10 . modified or placed in question.” but rather regards it as a social process applicable to any perceived “It is by labeling something a security issue that it becomes one. the foundation of security policy is not given by 'nature' but chosen by decision-makers to end up on the security political agenda. Buzan et al (1998:25) state that securitization can be studied the following way: “The way to study securitization is to study discourse (speech) and political constellations (gathering): When does an argument with a particular rhetorical and semiotic structure achieve sufficient effects to make an audience tolerate violations of rules that would otherwise have to be obeyed? If by means of an argument about the priority and urgency of an existential threat the securitizing actor has managed to break free of procedures or rules he or she would otherwise be bound by.13. p. Every new utterance of security is a test. Security is a social and intersubjective construction. A Journal of The Network of Peace and Conflict Studies (2000). the speech act succeeds only if the partner accepts the offer contained in it..

(London: Lynne Rienner. “A Two Level Approach to Securitization: An Analysis of Drug Trafficking in China and Russia” 23 Barry Buzan. The first is concerned with the securitizing actor. 25 “Securitization: What Makes Something A Security Threat. (2) emergency action and (3) effects on inter-unit relations by breaking free of rules. 11 . the equivalent is the passing of authorization to use force (or commit special resources). 26 T Balzacq. everything else will be irrelevant (because we will not be here or will not be free to deal with it in our own way). but can settle with the so called “special measures. there is a model of securitization based on the "medicalization of deviance" model in sociology. quoted in Op cit.A New Framework for Analysis.. These are: (1) identification of existential threats. the equivalent being some powerful interest group backing the idea turf-battling. A securitizing move is in theory an option open to any unit. 24 Ibid. this paper wishes to stress two points. While in most of the literature 22 Erik Asplund. "The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency. Ole Wæver. Security . Jaap de Wilde..rules that are socially pp.To limit ‘everything’ from becoming a security issue. a successful securitization consists of three steps.htm.” European Journal of International Relations. some argue that it does not have to be an emergency mode.. the equivalent being a politician using strong rhetoric designating. 11 No.” In addition to the three steps required to securitize an issue.the ways that individuals label themselves norms -.apsu. whether written or unwritten cultures -. italics made by the author of this paper. because only once an actor has convinced an audience (inter-unit relations) of its legitimate need to go beyond otherwise binding rules and regulations (emergency mode) can we identify a case of securitization. which consists of five-stages as follow: 25 • • defining something as a security issue prospecting.”24 This first step towards a successful securitization is called a securitizing move. Balzacq (2005) has mentioned three faces of securitization: • • • • • • identities -. 1998). the equivalent being dusting off some old intelligence report (or data back-up) claims-making.the ways people classify. and communicate their experiences26 In borrowing lens from the securitization theory. Audience. 2 (2005).23 To present an issue as an existential threat is to say that: “If we do not tackle this problem. However.171-201. codify.6. p. Vol. and Context. Meanwhile.” retrieved from http://www.

1999b: 210). (Cambridge: “Immigration and the Politics of Security. power asymmetries are high. but primarily in the context of regional security. 28 Rita Floyd. “Institutional Theory in International Relations” 30 Ibid. while at the same time reminding us that existing institutions tend to structure the field of vision of those contemplating change (Hall and Taylor.. it refers to the participants of ARF (which are states) moving issues to be addressed in ARF meetings. It has to do with the traditional understanding that in the international environment “a logic of consequences is likely to be more compelling than a logic of appropriateness because rules can be in conflict. but not in the context of national security of the member states per se. 1999: 3334). No.” The principal focus of normative institutionalism is on the ways institutions constrain individual choice. Vol 8.” Security Studies.28 Normative Institutionalism Originating in the subfield of organization theory. 12 . this paper recognizes that some writers argue that the Copenhagen School’s conceptualization blocks the path to human security. in this inquiry. normative institutionalism conceives of institutional change in terms of learning (Peters.about securitization. “Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move.pdf 29 Christer Jönsson and Jonas Tallberg. 2004). this paper endorses Rita Floyd’s stance that such incompatibility does not necessarily exist if human Roxanne Lynn Doty.80 and Karen Fierke.29 Analyses based on normative institutionalism are relatively rare in International Relations.110. 5 (Winter 2007).” Human Security Journal. They are picked from the broader conception of human security as mentioned earlier.Floyd. and the benefits derived from pursuing instrumental policies can be great” (Krasner.peacecenter. Critical Approaches to International Security.2/3 (199899): p.30 More recently. security is conceptualized as a securitizing move. normative institutionalism redirects attention from rationality and means-ends efficiency to the role of norms and values. The second point concerns the issues in the ‘observation list’. Vol. constructivists within IR have extended the basic logic of the English school and pointed to the importance of international norms for state behavior in the 27 27 However. Against the “logic of instrumentality” or “logic of consequences” it posits the “logic of appropriateness. 1996: 953). http://www. the securitizing actor commonly refers to the state in the context of national security. p. Meanwhile. hierarchical structures of authority are absent. With its ideational angle.

( as well as domestic arena (Finnemore. 1996: 5). 1998). including: • Notion of ‘comprehensive security’. The interplay between domestic and international norms works the other way as well. 33 Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998). quoted in Kasira Cheeppensook. 1997. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. the ‘norm internalization’ may or may not occur. ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. 28 No 3 (2004). Checkel. This notion is mentioned explicitly in formal speeches of ASEAN leaders. 31 32 Ibid.” Asian Perspective. for example in the speech of the former SecretaryGeneral of ASEAN..chula.’ occurs where the socialized states which become ‘norm leaders’ attempt to socialize other states to be ‘norm followers’.pdf 34 Melly Caballero-Anthony. as states “are socialized to accept new norms. p. we talk about the distinctive nature of ASEAN’s security doctrines and practices. the new norm will not be debated anymore and will be treated as the ‘standard of appropriateness’33 Discussion ASEAN’s Approach to Security When we talk about ASEAN’s security conception. 892). If it does take place. “The ASEAN Way on Human Security. Ibid.”34There are three important points about ASEAN’s security conception according to her. Melly Caballero-Anthony argued that “Southeast Asia. 1998: 893).32 Furthermore.polsci. Finnemore and Sikkink developed the norm’s life cycle.. There is thus “a two-level norm game occurring in which the domestic and the international norms tables are increasingly linked” (Finnemore and Sikkink. The second stage.31 Many international norms that set standards for the appropriate behavior of states originate as domestic norms and become international through the efforts of entrepreneurs of different kinds. Vol. 1996..” retrieved from http://humansecurityconf. including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational “advocacy networks” (Keck and Sikkink.’ International Organization 52 (1998). The first stage is ‘norm emergence’ whereby ‘norm entrepreneurs’ attempt to convince states to embrace new values and perceptions of interest” (Finnemore. Finnemore and Sikkink. 158.has his own history of reconceptualizing security. Finally. 13 . ‘norm cascade. the last stage.

the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II. antiCommunist riot in Indonesia in the mid-60s claimed about 400. albeit comprehensive.“ASEAN has long recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to security. p. the discourses on security typically regard the state as the only security referent.. The conception has been challenged on the ground that it was seen impertinent to the real security condition of the people in ASEAN. building trust and confidence. our most recent guide. He stated that the region has witnessed “some of the worst violence of the twentieth century. 36 The three points.7 million between 1975-79. the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killed about 1. 162. H. 14 . reified the position of the state • as the primary unit of analysis where it is further legitimized by its role in bringing about economic development and in shaping security doctrines. 26-27 October 2006. we can say that the traditional conception of security in ASEAN has been state-centric and centered around the concept of national. according to Caballero-Anthony. building of informal institutions and processes oriented to prevent regional conflicts.”35 • Emphasis on economic 36 Op cit. ethnic and separatist movements in East Timor and Aceh have 35 Welcome Remarks. 37 Ibid.000 American casualties.”38 The approach is seen as being low-key. and 60..000 lives. economic. Southeast Asia faces some of the most critical challenges of human insecurity in the world. http://www. 38 Ibid. According to Acharya (2007). Still referring to Caballero-Anthony. security. US war in Vietnam produced 250.” Finally. and developing cooperative approaches with the like minded and non-like minded states to address non-traditional threats of security. The ASEAN Vision 2020 called it “total human development. 1.000 South Vietnamese. observance of regional norms.E Ong Keng Yong. we can observe the ‘style’ of regional security practice in ASEAN. specifically stated that ASEAN ‘subscribes to the principle of comprehensive security as having broad political.1 million North Vietnamese. stressing the habit of dialogue. Secretary-General of ASEAN at the ASEAN-UNESCO Concept Workshop on Human Security in Southeast Asia Jakarta. Therefore. whether going by the narrow (freedom from fear) or broad (free from want) conception. and socio-cultural spheres. Linkage between national resilience (domestic stability) and regional security.” For example. social and cultural aspects’. The 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation called it “national resilience” in political.37 Besides the doctrines. “ASEAN regional security approaches are built upon norm-building. economic. Consequently. Economic development was used as a major means of instrument to bring about domestic stability.

). and Patricia Owens (eds. 40Human insecurity in the region is exacerbated by the impact of the intensifying globalization and regional economic integration. drugs trafficking. and Myanmar. and ethnic separatism in Myanmar claimed more than 600. “Human security is the concept that embodies the security concerns of societies in the region and where the most vulnerable can find answers to articulate their security in their own terms without being excluded and alienated. 39 Recently. and Malaysia’s struggle amid the ethnic tensions in the country.000 lives.” Asian Perspective. and the the most recent Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar).’ an actor is doing an action. Indian Ocean Tsunami. by referring a particular issue or issue area as something pertaining to regional security (or national security). (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 40 Ibid. 42 Melly Caballero-Anthony. Southeast Asia is also prone to other threats to human security. 41 Ibid. therefore. In addition. p. 2008). Southeast Asia has also experienced a range of transnational threats in recent years. In our case. and many more. including the Asian economic crisis of 1997 (and the shake-down of the global economy just now). national HIV infection in Southeast Asia is the highest in Asia.”42 Securitization of Human Security Agenda As noted earlier in the section of theoretical and conceptual framework.claimed 200. “Human Security” in John Baylis.501. Southern Philippines..000 and more than 2000 lives. the prevalence of underweight children under 5 years age in the region is the third highest in the world (28%) after sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. 15 . The Globalization of World Politics.41 According to Caballero-Anthony. Vol. as in the case of Thailand’s coup d’ etat and changes in government regime. Although absolute poverty levels have declined. Indonesia’s perilous transition to democracy. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. an actor is conducting the first stage of securitization.. by uttering ‘security. while the outbreaks of H5N1 avian influenza in the region are the largest and most severe on record. security is a speech act. p. respectively. 28 No 3 (2004). Steve Smith. namely the securitizing move in order to move such issue out of the “normal” political realm into the 39 Amitav Acharya. 158. environmental problems (transboundary haze. not mentioning challenges coming from internal conflicts in Southern Thailand. the political stability of some of the member states were shaken down. human trafficking.

then still “consultative partners” of ASEAN. sometimes formal but mostly informal taking place among national representatives at stake. mediation. the other Southeast Asian states that were not yet ASEAN realm where special measures (or in extreme cases. namely: a. security matters were mainly relegated to discussions or consultations. ASEAN Regional Forum The end of the Cold War had altered the configuration of international relations in East Asia. Papua New Guinea. agreed to establish the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).aseanregionalforum. Thus. to foster constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest and concern. the Twenty-Sixth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting and Post Ministerial ARF Establishment. or merely as provider of space and time to meet and talk). and 43 44 ASEAN Overview. retrieved from 16 . emergency measures) can be set up and legitimized. Therefore. The process had been carried out loosely on bilateral and or multilateral basis with ASEAN acting as facilitator (in cases of good offices. and China and Russia. The inaugural meeting of the ARF was held in Bangkok on 25 July 1994.43 Initially. The ARF mechanisms are the center of the established regional security practices in the ASEAN. Mongolia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were admitted in 1999 and 2000. retrieved from http://www.asean. member states have been more reliant on security mechanisms built within the ASEAN framework. confidence building. India became a participant on becoming a dialogue partner in 1996. the Forum participants included the ASEAN members. and eventually the prevention of conflict. which were held in Singapore on 23-25 July 1993. an ASEAN observer. as the institution building took place in the organization. ASEAN’s then seven dialogue partners.44 The objectives of the ARF are outlined in the First ARF Chairman's Statement (1994). However. In the case of ASEAN. The new environment presented historic opportunities for the relaxation of tensions in the region through multilateral consultations. we will briefly address the nature and characteristics of the Forum.

" They cited in particular: • The usefulness of the ARF as a venue for multilateral and bilateral dialogue and consultations and the establishment of effective principles for dialogue and cooperation. • information relating to defense policy and the publication of defense white papers. the forum had attained a record of achievements that have contributed to the maintenance of peace. non-interference. Examining the issues in ARF’s agenda can shed light to the securitization taking place in the region’s security conceptions and practices. when it is successfully done and when it is not.b. retrieved from Ibid. However.. As noted in ARF concept paper. On the tenth year of the ASEAN Regional Forum. 17 . security and cooperation in the region. • The willingness among ARF participants to discuss a wide range of security The mutual confidence gradually built by cooperative activities. Although the establishment of the ARF more or less coincided with the publication of the 1994 UNDP Human Development Report. the ARF Ministers met in Phnom Penh on 18 June 2003 and declared that "despite the great diversity of its membership. defense and military officials of ARF participants. the key challenges that had to be acknowledged are as following: 45 ARF Objectives. and although UNDP was in fact the Forum’s one and only non-state dialogue partner. to make significant contributions to efforts towards confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region. incremental progress and moving at a pace comfortable to all.45 Since its establishment more than a decade ago. We may not be able to trace the entire process by looking only at the results. The cultivation of habits of dialogue and consultation on political and The transparency promoted by such ARF measures as the exchange of issues in a multilateral setting. apparently there was no linkage of security conception between the two. • • security issues. and • The networking developed among national security. featuring decision-making by consensus. ARF claimed to have done more than something good. we may tell when a securitization is taking place. by looking at the issues moved and sustained (or overruled) as issues pertaining to regional security.

claims-making. not 18 . Another possibility is that there had never been any actor securitizing issues pertaining to human security agenda simply because they did not consider them as security concerns. the absence of such issue in the agenda means that the securitization stopped at the securitizing move (stage one). 46 ASEAN Regional Forum: The Concept Paper. prospecting.asean. but failed to push that particular issue(s) to the agenda. especially because ASEAN has long had a conception of ‘comprehensive security’ comprising non-traditional security concerns. we may say that there was no securitization of human security agenda taking place or completed at the earlier period of ARF’s existence. the purpose is to show whether or not that ASEAN has witnessed securitization of issues pertaining to human security. Therefore. Nevertheless. economic security and environmental security. That was one possibility. ARF did not seem to ever consider human security issues as the key challenges to regional peace and security. retrieved from http://www. the comprehensive notion of security is lacking the people’s emphasis or focus. One has to be careful in identifying a particular issue as pertaining to human security agenda. in the first section of this discussion.g. However. e. where the actor identified something as an existential threat requiring emergency or special measures. Even if some of the participants had tried to do the securitizing move by saying that a particular issue pertained to regional security and should be addressed in ARF meetings. even although it does not embrace the whole assumptions in human security as a perspective. The actor(s) might have done the process of defining. the security concerns of ARF in the earlier period of its existence were traditional in nature in which the state was reified as the only security referent. and is directed primarily towards securing the state or the national entity. and turf-battling (in terms of the model sketched out earlier) in the adoption of the agenda session of ARF meetings.• The significant shifts in power relations due to the periods of rapid The divergence among ARF participants concerning approaches to peace The territorial tensions and disputes among ARF participants46 economic growth that can lead to conflict • and security • As we can see above. therefore left the securitization incomplete (it could not be called securitization at all because it was incomplete).

The ARF participants have managed to pass the issue 19 . This process can be described as such: by uttering ‘energy security. therefore approve to the securitizing move. energy security and economic security. we will now move to the question whether or not securitization of human security agenda ever takes place in the Forum’s discourse. and narcotics control Energy Security Environmental Related Issues Economic security The above issues are those pertaining to human security agenda or at least having • • • • human security dimension. we will stick to the rhetoric or speech act when an actor tried to make a motion to add the particular issue to ARF’s agenda. and Disaster Relief Related Activities. were confined in the normal realm of politics.It is also important to note that not all the issues moved to ARF’s agenda are meant to be security concerns because ARF is also meant to be a venue to discuss political issues among its participants. non-traditional security issues. transnational crimes. They are made security concerns while before such securitization took place. the securitization is complete. let us take a look at the list of Track I activities conducted by the Forum from the year of its establishment to the latest summit in May. Avian Influenza. SARS. The same logic applies to economic security and non-traditional security issues. including tropical hygiene. Three of them are obviously dragged out of the normal realm of politics to the security realm. In order not to confuse the two distinct realms (in fact. Once the participants by consensus accept the term. 2008. infectious diseases. Having examined the initial spirit surrounding the earlier periods of ARF existence. we have to examine the rhetoric. Several issues that could be the result of securitization process are the followings: • Search. Economic security is the first sector of human security mentioned in the 1994 UNDP’s Human Development Report.’ one is doing the securitizing move. So. the distinction of political and security realm is the basis of securitization approach!). including actions devoted to tackle natural disasters and infectious diseases Non-Traditional Security Issues. the labeling. First. Rescue. but they are not necessarily security concerns (and therefore not the result of securitizations). the naming. identifying the lack of energy supply or access as an existential threat to the core values of a particular referent object.

the Track II can be said to be lacking the authority and capability in completing the securitization (although by uttering ‘human security. However. they include territorial and jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea.”. hence a dialogical practice.’ they are already doing the securitizing move). we may expect the self-determination for East Timor as containing high element of human security. and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).asean.through the selective process of agenda adoption. 47 From the issues.” How about the issue of globalization impact? Quite a surprise. Now we will take a look at recent concerns and issues of ARF participants. such as ‘human security. and the impact of globalization. weapons of mass destruction. the description of the issue includes the utterance of human security term shown in the following statement: 47 ASEAN Overview (2000). nuclear proliferation in Northeast Asia and South Asia.”. to utter something is to act). the association emphasized its support for Indonesia’s territorial integrity. democratic and economically prosperous Indonesia is basic to the maintenance of regional 20 . In this context. from the way it is described (remember. The Track II has served as think-thank group or epistemic communities consisting of experts. .. becomes part of a discourse. the term “human security dimension” appears once in the list of ARF Track II activities in the form of Workshop Group Meeting on Human Security Dimension (13-15 November 2003). issues and facets is presented as a threat which. This shows an obvious evasion of ARF participants to securitize the issues pertaining to individual insecurity for reasons that will be addressed later.ASEAN has declared its position that a united. It is worth noting that there was not even one occasion when the term ‘human security’ was announced or used in Track I activities. in a discourse. government officials acting in personal capacity. However. it is not an issue in which human security gains primary attention. eventually.” Interestingly.’ represents a ‘securitizing move’ in that human insecurity (as the opposite of human security) in its various aspects. As David Bosolf argues. it would mean so much.invoking a notion. If human security ever entered the ARF agenda. therefore the securitization can be said to have taken place. retrieved from http://www. The following statement will make it clear that the referent object was primarily the state (Indonesia): . We have investigated the securitization of human security agenda from ARF participants Track I activities. self-determination for East Timor..

social and political impacts of globalization so as to ensure sustained economic and social development. However. The fact is.“The Seventh ARF also considered the economic. we can see more clearly that the securitizing move has taken place. it can be argued that there has not only been the securitization of human security agenda as shown in the analysis of ARF Participants Track I activities. (b) promote environmental sustainability and sustainable natural resource management that meets current and future needs. ASEAN-UNESCO held a workshop named ASEAN-UNESCO Concept Workshop on Human Security in Southeast Asia to attempt to reach convergence on the concept so it can be translated into policymaking. in the welcome remarks of the then Secretary-General of ASEAN. through dialogue and cooperation at national and international levels.” Restraining ourselves from exclaiming “Eureka!. It is an imprudent move to say that the notion of human security was fully welcomed at that moment (year 2000). in dealing with the economic. The Other Mechanism: ASEAN Ministerial Meeting In 2006. ARF has reaffirmed the need for Southeast Asian countries to continue efforts. It is not clear whether the workshop really amounted to something because in the latest ASEAN’s annual report (2007).” we finally find an explicit utterance of human security (although in the form of “human component of security”) in a formal statement of ASEAN. but there has also been the securitizing move of individual’s insecurity (in as many aspects as it may contain) as the term human security was invoked in the region’s security discourse. Therefore. it is worth noting that the ‘consideration of human component of security’ as stated in ASEAN Overview was limited to economic realm. The Secretary-General mentioned some of ASEAN activities and agreements pertaining to human security. Therefore. and (d) preserve and promote the region's cultural heritage and cultural identity. including: • Providing social protection that (a) address poverty. Ong Keng Yong. It discussed both the positive effects and the repercussions of globalization. However. namely securitizing move.(in Vientiane Action Programme) 21 . it was not. (c) promote social governance that manages impacts of economic integration. it is safe to assume that human security as a whole (not only issues pertaining to human security agenda) has not moved from the initial stage of securitization. social and human components of security. including greater economic interdependence among nations and the multiplication of security threats like transnational crime. equity and health impacts of economic growth. especially economic impact of globalization. there has not been a single utterance of human security.

‘Foreign Policy According to Freud. but also at the national levels. The formal channel. are referred to as ‘Track II’.ac. it became part of the discourse of ASEAN’ security conception.e. and various forms of economic crimes • • The Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (disaster relief) The Regional Framework for the Control and Eradication of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (public health) The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution Addressing the social impact of regional integration and globalization. Aviel. trafficking in persons. ‘Track III’ referred to non-governmental sectors and independent academics with different agendas from what propelled by Track I and Track II. quoted in Kasira Cheeppensook. terrorism.’ AsiaPacific Review 6 (1999). They can therefore structure behaviour. they need to be internalized.pdf 22 . “The ASEAN Way on Human Security. interactions among official representatives of governments. is known as ‘Track I’ diplomacy.chula.• ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime carrying out the ASEAN Plan of Action to Combat Transnational Crime (the meeting has identified the following threats to human security as follows: illicit drug trafficking.48 48 William D. i.’ Foreign Policy 45 (1981-1982).th/Documents/Presentations/Kasira. the change in ASEAN security norms could be accounted for by examining how ASEAN multilateral diplomacy works. Montville. one set of measures being contained in the ASEAN Action Plan on Rural Development and Poverty Eradication. after being set up. Human Security in Terms of Norm Internalization For constructivists.” retrieved from http://humansecurityconf. working towards narrowing the development gaps not only among ASEAN Members Countries. ‘The Growing Role of NGOs in ASEAN. arms smuggling. Davidson and Joseph V. Meanwhile. 78-92. 145-157. Because norms are socially enforced. Joann F. involving experts and governments’ officials participating in their private capacities (although there are also NGOs). Once the term “human security” was uttered by the Secretary General and used in • • the ministerial meeting.polsci. the importance of norms in any institution is beyond doubt. Other dialogues taking place outside Track I. Norms can influence identities and shape the definition of interests.

“The ASEAN Way on Human Security” 52 See ASEAN Annual Report 2007 53 See the annexes in ASEAN Charter 23 . 135-147 (p. Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma. 28 (2004). quoted in Ibid. it is not surprising that comprehensive security. Melly Caballero-Anthony mentioned that “Civil-Society Organizations have been playing that pivotal in framing human security through their transnational work in promoting human rights and human development”54 Furthermore.” Asian Perspective. ‘The Autonomy Dilemma of Track Two Diplomacy in Southeast Asia. which regards the state as a referent of security. 155-189.’ in The Quest for Human Security: The Next Phase of ASEAN?. ‘Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. 138). 28 No 3 (2004). 2001). pp.’ Asian Perspective.” They have been trying to socialize human security norm by engaging with ASEAN’s security discourse through the so called Track III diplomacy. Norm Emergence As pointed out by several writers addressing the question of human security in ASEAN51 (which are quite abundant). 155-189 and Kasira Cheeppensook. quoted in Ibid. 50 Herman Joseph S.52 consisting not only of those CSOs associated with it (the Track II)53. but also those holding critical stance towards the organization. for example CSOs under ASEAN People’s Assembly (APA). especially the norm’s life cycle developed by Finnemore and Sikkink. Focus on Global South.. ASEAN leaders somehow intensified the organization’s contact with transnational advocacy network. Kraft.Track I and Track II agendas are often similar due to the reliance of the latter on the former in terms of financial and political support. pp. despite the slight move towards human security recently. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and scholars constituting Track III diplomacy have been trying to incorporate ‘traditionally non-security concerns in the Asia-Pacific into the security discourse’. On the other hand. 51 See for example Melly Caballero-Anthony.’ Security Dialogue 31 (2000): 343-356. In the attempt to raise people’s sense of belonging towards ASEAN. ‘Human Security and ASEAN Mechanisms. she argued that the Track III diplomacy can play the following roles: 49 Mely Caballero-Anthony. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. ed. the emergence of human security norm owes to the efforts of civil-society organizations (CSOs) acting as “norms entrepreneurs. by Pranee Thiparat (Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies. Vol.50 Now we will examine the state human security in the ASEAN in terms of norm internalization using insights from normative institutionalism.. etc. Herman Joseph S. prevails throughout Track I and Track II dialogue. Kraft.49 Therefore.

therefore playing important role in norms-making. although the proposal finally faltered. and shape its key processes and institutions. There was even an expectation of the removal of the non-interference policy central to the organization since its establishment55. Presently. 55 http://www. optimists argue that it was a nice result of compromise stressing that if the wording had not been loose. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. national and regional organizations. 28 No 3 (2004). The WG-ASEAN is meant to promote the multiplicity of perspectives. Vol. strategies and forms employed by its individual members.” Asian Perspective.asiasapa. the SAPA WG on ASEAN has more than 100 CSOs. below will be presented an analysis of the Charter from one CSOs 24 . The SAPA WG on ASEAN is a common platform for collective action on ASEAN advocacy.56 54 Melly Caballero-Anthony. Solidarity for Asian Peoples' Advocacies (SAPA) Working Group on ASEAN.wikipedia. Pessimists doubt the efficacy of the Charter since the wording are rather loose and because there are several subtle contradictions. The Charter was considered unsatisfactory by many critical civil-society organizations in Track III expecting a relaxed approach of ASEAN to the non-interference norm and a more institutionalized commitment to human rights. Some question the probability that it will be enforced at all. pp. give legal personality to the grouping. pressures from various CSOs demanding to be engaged in the drafting process were great since the intention was formally tabled at the 11th ASEAN Summit held in December 2005 in Kuala Lumpur.• • • • • Framing on debates and getting issues on the agenda Encouraging discursive commitments from states and other policy Causing procedural change at international and domestic level Affecting policy And influencing behaviour changes in target actors Concerning the ASEAN Charter. as it strives for specific unities in ASEAN-related advocacy and action. 155-189 (158). Malaysia It was seen as a critical moment since many promises had been given during the Charter’s contemplation and because it was intended to articulate principles and objectives. as 56 http://www. To illustrate some doubts about the delivery of the Charter’s promises. it would not have been signed at all. However.

Singapore/June 2006). Aside from the regional consultations that the SAPA WG tried to intervene in. When the Charter content finally leaked to media in November 2007. much less empower them. is not acknowledged The Charter is gender blind and does not recognize the primacy of the regional environment. it fails to put people at the center. However. on the Economic Pillar (EPG consultation. The WG also participated in the only regional consultation held by the High Level Task Force (HLTF) on the drafting of the ASEAN Charter in March 2007 in Manila. Fidel V. Special Adviser to Mr. SAPA-WG on ASEAN announced that it was a “disappointment.html?Itemid=94 25 .. and consolidating the legal framework that would define the Association. Ramos. social justice and lasting peace.falls short of what is needed to establish a ‘people-centered’ and ‘people-empowered’ ASEAN. Bali/April 2006). on the Political-Security Pillar (EPG consultation. the different network members also initiated national processes in 2006 and 2007 to help introduce ASEAN to civil society and inform them of the Charter that was being drafted.focusweb. SAPA WG on ASEAN made three formal submissions to the Eminent Persons Group (EPG). Ubud.. retrieved from http://www. and on the Socio-Cultural Pillar and Institutional Mechanisms (Meeting with Ambassador Rosario Manalo. Manila/November 2006).org/analysis-of-the-aseancharter. 57 Solidarity for Asian Peoples' Advocacies (SAPA) Working Group on ASEAN Analysis of the ASEAN Charter.SAPA’s Analysis The Solidarity for Asian Peoples' Advocacies (SAPA) Working Group on ASEAN tried to engage in the ASEAN Charter building process.”57 The points of criticism concerning people-centric norms by SAPA are among the followings: • • There are no clear spaces created or procedures established to institutionalize the role of citizens and civil society organizations in regional community-building The market-oriented language of the Charter expresses its bias for the economic project in the region. and reiterated the main points of its submissions. It succeeds in codifying past ASEAN agreements. EPG Member for the Philippines. without recognition that this may be in conflict with the social and economic justice that the Charter is also supposed to uphold • • The centrality of redistribution and economic solidarity to the goals of poverty eradication.

.th/Documents/Presentations/Kasira. countries of the region have to enhance linkages and cooperation and pay greater attention to human security focusing on the grassroots”59. SAPA’s criticisms reflect the norms pertaining to human security that they are trying to uphold through their engagement with the ASEAN. maybe in a result of perilous compromise. In 1998. but has also come to embrace the people aspect. “The ASEAN Way on Human Security.chula. the centrality of social and economic justice (contrary to the prioritization of liberal values by the Charter).” retrieved from http://humansecurityconf. quoted in Kasira Cheeppensook. Annual Security Outlook 2001.”58 Thailand’s conception of security has explicitly embraced the term “human security.”60 Thailand is the only country in ASEAN that joined the human security network (HSN). but in a way seen as still prioritizing the centrality of the According to Cheeppensook. Thailand then acted as a norm leader. human rights. It also states.61 The country is also notable for having proposed an alternative for ASEAN’s non-interference norm.• The landmark inclusion of human rights in the Preamble and in the statement of Principles is belied by the lack of detail in the long-awaited human rights body.pdf 61 26 .. immediately after the 1997 financial crisis. in this case being ASEAN.polsci. retrieved from http://www.aseanregionalforum.aseanregionalforum. The norms have been incorporated by the See ‘The Human Security Network’ (2005). “The ASEAN Way on Human Security.. and tried to convince other member states to follow the same path. marked by the emergence of “norms leaders” in the socialized object.or human security -as is comprehensive in the sense that today it encompasses not only “Thailand was persuaded successfully during the norm emergence stage.” retrieved from http://humansecurityconf.chula. it states that“In the political and security sense.pdf 59 60 Thailand. .” In its annual security outlooks. it is to be seen whether the socialization process still Thailand.”. Thailand proposed the notion of “flexible engagement” to allow for a more relaxed approach of the organization in discussing sensitive matters 58 Kasira Cheeppensook. Annual Security Outlook 2000. Norm Cascade After a norm or norms emerged from the “norms entrepreneurs” as discussed retrieved from http://www. the importance of gender equality... HSN is a group of like-minded countries that maintains dialogue on questions pertaining to human security at the level of Foreign Ministers. economic and social aspects. and of course. such as the empowerment of civil society.polsci. military .

pertaining to domestic affairs of each country. it is quite obvious to see that such process has not been taking place. even mentioned once or twice in the Track I activities. The human being must be protected even when— perhaps especially when— the assailant is the state. Moreover.”63 While Indonesia previously tended to counter any effort to challenge the established norms. under SBY administration upholding progressive foreign policy. Norm Internalization Some writers argued that human security norm in ASEAN has been in the “norms cascade” stage.” then it must care not only about the livelihood and the social amenities but also about the fundamental rights of the human being. Flexible engagement is not a proposal for human security per se.pdf 63 Keynote Speech by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the ASEAN Forum: Rethinking ASEAN Towards the ASEAN Community 2015. together with Thailand. Jakarta. These are the new realities—the pressures and challenges of our time. which is supposed to protect him. then it must be a pillar that the human being can lean on when her formally mandated protector becomes her attacker. whether alone or part of a group. the logic of appropriateness upheld by normative institutionalists applies.” This means that we have a common obligation to protect the physical integrity and the dignity of the human being. there will be no more debate about the particular norms. 7 August 2007.asean. including human rights problems in troubled states like Burma. Once the norms internalization takes place. But this approach has aroused opposition from other AESAN members. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono below: “Today the concept of security extends to what is called “human security. The debate surrounding whether or not human security is compatible with the established norms of ASEAN still it is still treated as a foreign norm. recently.” retrieved from http://www. In addition to Thailand. “Human Security in Asia:Conceptual Ambiguities and Common Understandings. retrieved from 27 . but the “norms internalization” process remains in question. notably Vietnam and Myanmar62 until it was finally dismissed. common criminals. although it calls for more “frank” discussion within ASEAN about sensitive political. it can be said as assuming the “norms leader” position. against all attackers—be they terrorists. And if we are going to have an ASEAN that is a “community of caring societies. if an ASEAN Security Community is to be one of the pillars of the ASEAN Community.yorku. and they will be accepted as the appropriate standard of behaviour. Therefore. As human security entered the Track III and Track II lexicon. Indonesia has also stated the importance of human security to be embraced in the regional security discourse as shown in the statement of Indonesia’s President. 62 Arabinda Acharya. the Avian Flu virus or a tsunami. In the case of human security in ASEAN. economic and social issues.

”.64 The established norms are also reified in the ASEAN Security Community’s principles as shown below: “ The ASEAN Security Community shall abide by the UN Charter and other principles of international law and uphold ASEAN’s principles of non-interference. a possibility of engagement (even in a form of troubled engagement) of human security and regional security norm if the member states of ASEAN manage to reach an understanding in the meaning and limitation of the former concept to search for its compatibility with the existing norms.the extent to which a new idea like human security could find acceptance in the region 64 ASEAN Charter M. there are voices stressing the compatibility of human security concerns and agenda with ASEAN’s principles. as voiced by M. territorial integrity and national identity of all ASEAN Member States. below:65 “The human security approach becomes incompatible with regional security when it challenges certain patterns of resource allocation that favour military security and obsession with defending national and peaceful settlement of differences and disputes. the renunciation of the threat or the use of force. sovereignty. as argued by Acharya: . at least if taken at face value.” The incompatibility of human security and regional security as described in a sarcastic tone above only exists when the regional’s arrangement is meant to be hostile to the people of ASEAN. which is of course impertinent.. Jr. consensus-based decision-making. C.Arguments against human security as a norm centers on the principle of peoplecentrality disregarding national barriers and national sovereignty. C. There is. (e) non-interference in the internal affairs of ASEAN Member States. Abad. Abad. Jr.” However. It becomes objectionable when it threatens power structures that entrench the dominance of a few. equality. Incompatibility arises when greed. “The Challenge of Balancing State Security with Human Security. corruption and the threat or use of force characterize national and regional governance. however. They are incompatible when regional alliance building of the civil society is threatening the narrow and self-serving interpretation of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states.aseansec. national and regional resilience.” http://www.htm 65 28 . respect for national sovereignty. The “people’s sovereignty” notion is seen as being incompatible with the sovereignty and noninterference norms (the latter is derived from the former) that have been the sacred norms of ASEAN’s build-up reified in the principles section of the Charter as shown below: Article 2 (Principles): (a) respect for the independence. Human security is incompatible with regional security when the concerns and priorities of regional civil society are not shared by the political and bureaucratic elites.

68 To risk simplifying the matter.” retrieved from http://humansecurityconf.. 29 .polsci. such as human rights and liberal democratic governance. the SWOT analysis will not be directed to ASEAN’s potential integration) STRENGTH • ASEAN' desire and efforts to be a people-centric organization 66 Quoted in Kasira Cheeppensook. However.chula. below is presented a raw SWOT analysis concerning the admission of human security in the regional security discourse (since norm internalization has not been taking place. It conceives institutional change in terms of learning. institutions constrain individual choice. The most controversial aspect of the human security approach is its inclusion of political factors. It will also bear implication on the regional governance as argued by Abad: “To pursue human security means to: (a) Enhance the capability of regional organizations to advance universal values effectively and with greater autonomy from its dominant members and local interest groups. Ibid. the latter has assumed position in the periphery of the regional security discourse and there is a potential change following such tendency. According to normative institutionalism.depends very much on how it resonates with existing ideas and practices concerning”66 Potential to Change It is too far to assume that ASEAN will replace the old-faithful established norms in its security discourse with human security norm in the near future.”67 SWOT Analysis At face (c) Frame regional cooperation in terms of global human security agenda. the admission of human security as a norm (as opposed to human security as agenda which can be more easily compromised) seems to be detrimental to ASEAN integration because it is rather (in order not to say very) controversial. (b) Create a much stronger and more focused campaign within global civil society make regional institutions accountable to public by adopting democratic decision-making processes. The admission of human security concerns will bear implications on the process of defining the interests of ASEAN and the member states. “The ASEAN Way on Human Security. and human security is still in the stage of securitizing move.pdf 67 68 Loc cit..

meaning that issues pertaining to human security or having human security dimensions are taken into the regional security 30 . agenda. but also in the economic and socio-cultural pillars) their respective domestic realm) WEAKNESSES • • THREATS • • • The divergence of member states concerning the scope of human security The controversial nature of human security concept with the inclusion of The perceived incompatibility of human security norm with the established (also threat to ASEAN cohesion) political dimensions of human security (also threat to ASEAN cohesion) norms of ASEAN. we tried to answer the following questions: How has ASEAN approached security? Has securitization of human security agenda been taking place in ASEAN’s security discourse? How is the state of human security in ASEAN in terms of norm internalization? What are the potential changes of embracing human security in the regional security discourse? The data gathered in this inquiry shows that there has been securitization of human security agenda in ASEAN’s regional security discourse.• • ASEAN's inclusion of human security dimensions in its principles. mainly state’s sovereignty and norm-interference OPPORTUNITIES • The dominance of member states in shaping ASEAN’s interests The dependence of ASEAN institutionalization on its members’ consensus The supportive global environment in the promotion of human security The emergence of norms leaders among the member states of ASEAN The continuous efforts of CSOs in the Track III and increasing socialization • • (Thailand and Indonesia) in the Track II Conclusion In the discussion section. and Transition of its member states towards embracing more people-centric norms (in mechanisms (not only in the security.

as shown in the ARF’s agenda and activities. The norm emergence owes to the CSOs efforts in promoting human security agenda and norm while the norm cascade is primarily done by the socialized member states. Meanwhile.discourse. This is to say that human security as an agenda has managed to enter the regional security discourse. human security norm has only managed to reach the second stage. For the second question pertaining to internalization of human security as a norm. Indonesia. change in behaviour of the member states may be encouraged in the context of learning in which the norm of human security acts as the appropriate standard of behaviour that shape their interests. In the norms’ life-cycle. 31 . including the need to further engage CSOs in ASEAN’s activities and decisionmaking process and granting more independence to the organization. albeit still in the periphery. namely Thailand and recently. namely norm cascade due to the lack of consensus among the member states and regional leaders concerning the definition and implications of the inclusion of human security as a norm and to the perceived incompatibility of such process with the established norms in ASEAN’s security discourse. Finally. the data shows that such process has not been taking place. the admission of human security agenda in the regional security discourse will bear implication on regional governance and the behaviour of ASEAN’s member states.

” Asian Perspective. p.” Human Security Journal. Steve Smith.” (Canberra: Department of International Relations of Australian National University.). The Globalization of World Politics. Asplund. 2008). Anthony. (Cambridge: Polity. Vol. 2003. M. Audience.” Security Studies. Melly. David.2/3 (1998-99): p.” European Journal of International Relations. Amitav.” retrieved from Floyd. Bosold. pp. No. pp. 11 No. Critical Approaches to International Security. “(Re-)Constructing Canada’s Human Security Agenda. Friis. London: University of Oxford. and Patricia Owens (eds. 2 (2005). “From Liminars to Others: Securitization Through Myths. Sabina. Vol 8. Kasira “The ASEAN Way on Human Security. T "The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency. Karsten.110. “A Two Level Approach to Securitization: An Analysis of Drug Trafficking in China and Russia” Balzacq. "A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. retrieved from Jönsson Christer and Jonas Tallberg. 155-189. Acharya.” Peace and Conflict Studies.501. Working Paper 2. “Human Security and the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Approach: Conceptualizing Human Security as a Securitizing Move. “The Challenge of Balancing State Security with Human Security” Acharya. 28 No 3 (2004). “Human Security in Asia:Conceptual Ambiguities and Common Understandings. “Revisioning Human Security in Southeast Asia. 2007. Arabinda. “What Security Makes Possible: Some Thoughts on Critical Security Studies.80 and Karen Fierke.. 32 .” retrieved from Burke. Vol. “Institutional Theory in International Relations” Lynn Doty. “Human Security” in John Baylis. Caballero-Anthony.” retrieved Alkire. “Immigration and the Politics of Security. and Ethnicity (CRISE).” Centre for Research on Inequality. and Context. Cheeppensook. p. Erik.. Vol.References Abad Jr. Rita. Human Security. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roxanne. 2004).171-201. C. A Journal of The Network of Peace and Conflict Studies (2000).. 5 (Winter 2007).

libertysecurity.asean. retrieved from http://www. retrieved from http://www.” retrieved from ASEAN Regional Forum: The Concept Paper.aseanregionalforum.php? option=content&task=view&id=24&itemid=59 ASEAN Charter.humansecurityreport.” http://www.allacademic.html “Securitization: What Makes Something A Security 26-27 October 2006 Solidarity for Asian Peoples' Advocacies (SAPA) Working Group on ASEAN “Analysis of the ASEAN http://www. Annual Security Outlook 2001.” retrieved from Taureck. Rita.Bringing Together Securitization Theory and Normative Critical Security Studies. retrieved from “What is Human Security. retrieved from http://www. retrieved from http://www.html?Itemid=94 http://www. retrieved from “Constructing Security through Communicative Action.doc http://www.asean.” June 16. Jakarta. “Positive and Negative Securitization 33 . retrieved from Yudhoyono.html http://www.asean. Annual Security Outlook 2000.” 7 August Thailand. 17. keynote speech at the ASEAN Forum: Rethinking ASEAN Towards the ASEAN Community 2015.htm.Ong Keng ASEAN Annual Report 2007.aseanregionalforum.focusweb.asiasapa. Susilo Bambang. Welcome Remark at the ASEAN-UNESCO Concept Workshop on Human Security in Southeast Asia Jakarta.pdf. 18 2005.htm http://www.

pdf http://www. http://www.pdf 34 .polsci.yorku. http://en.pdf http://www.