| Security, being the pre-requisite for survival is the ultimate value that states strive for in International politics. It is always sought against certain threats and either of the two predominant strategies can be adopted by states for being secure i.e. self-help or cooperation/alliances with others. A number of factors such as the changing systemic realities, the position/place of states in International System and the physical as well as non-physical attributes of their identities have a determining impact on the choices states make. However, as states face greater number of non-traditional Security(NTS) threats due to continuously unfolding processes of globalization, ‘Comprehensive Security’ has replaced ‘Security’ as their end goal. These shifts in the nature of threats and the end goals have constrained states’ choices in the sense that the significance of inter-actor collaboration has been reinforced.Trans-national and inter-connected nature of these novel issues compels states, especially those located proximate to each other and having comparable problems to prefer cooperative responses over self-reliant strategies which have certain limitations in dealing with NTS issues. Therefore, a greater tendency for regional and international cooperation can be found today as evident from the ever-more pervasive existence of inter-state cooperative blocs and regional organizations. It is to be noted however, that all states do not give equal importance to NTS issues and to the cooperation needed for dealing with them, mainly because of the prevalent traditional approach to security matters. In such situations, non-state actors(NSAs- considered insignificant in the mainstream IR discourse) might play a vital role in promoting this realization especially if they are capable of linking and connecting to the decision-making elite and state actors mainly through Track-II processes.The role of Track-II processes/actors in promoting greater inter-state cooperation on Non-traditional security matters is exactly what this dissertation focusses on. It deals specifically with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN), the regional institution representing Southeast Asia, which is one of the regions that has witnessed increased cooperation in the realm of non-traditional security. The region is considered highly vulnerable to a plethora of NTS threats; of these the plight of human rights, adversities of climate change and rising terrorism have been of greatest concern, both regionally and internationally. Traditionally, cooperation on these matters was a highly sensitive issue for ASEAN and was neither feasible nor encouraged as this was considered a derogation of the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference, which constitute the basic normative framework underlying regionalism in Southeast Asia, The ASEAN-Way. But the trend changed and collective action on these NTS issues became possible especially after the financial crisis when the need for effective, multidimensional and sustainable regional integration dawned upon the region.The ASEAN States faced similar circumstances w.r.t. the three issues, i.e. human rights, climate change and terrorism as all three were non-military and trans-national in nature, posed high intensity threat to the region, equally challenged the human security and last but not least member states had to overcome similar hurdles(the ASEAN-way) for making progress on all three. But observation has revealed that ASEAN states have been more successful in coming up with cooperative and coherent policy responses to human rights issues and climate change in comparison to their response to terrorism, where collective action was direly needed in the wake of 9/11 attacks. So this variation in ASEAN’s response to three comparable issues amid comparable contexts and circumstances provides the basic puzzle for this study. The factor(s) which allowed ASEAN to respond more efficiently to the two issues and not to the third one have been researched here.The main research question is that why ASEAN’s policy responses and initiatives(which manifest regional cooperation in Southeast Asia) have been relatively ineffective regarding counter-terrorism compared to its more successful and elaborate policy responses to human rights and climate change issues, especially when all three issues were equally eminent and needed equally expedient collective action. Preliminary research and review of the relevant literature revealed the unique role played by track-II actors in advancing the cause of human rights; following this clue a hypothesis was formulated to find if this factor could be responsible for ASEAN’s varied responses. This further research provided a valid base for arguing that the difference in ASEAN’s response to three issues can be attributed to the varied roles played by Track-II actors/processes in the three cases. Intra-regional Track-II processes have been more committed to the cause of human rights and climate change than to that of countering terrorism, thus contributing to a better institutionalization of the first two within ASEAN. Their greater involvement has complemented ASEAN’s efforts, helping it to respond in a more coordinated and comprehensive manner to the first two issues when compared to its relatively inefficient policy response regarding counter-terrorism.Discourse analysis of specific regional Track-II processes(their official activities, statements, communiques and recommendations) has been conducted to prove this assertion. Certain limits must be considered while reading through this dissertation, first being that it deals with decision-making at ASEAN-level and not with that in member states, so it focuses strictly on inter-state consensus building rather that intra-state one. Secondly, the effects whose cause is being researched here are the ‘ASEAN policy decisions and initiatives’ regarding the three issues, taken after consensual and collective agreement of all members; the impacts, actual implementation and subsequent effectiveness of these decisions lies outside the scope of this research. Last but not least, pertaining to the state-centrist nature of IR especially in Southeast Asia, this study does not claim Track-II processes to be the main determinants of state responses. Instead is focuses on their role as Intervening Variables and catalysts whose active or inactive role might lead to different responses in similar cases and comparable contexts.The concept of Epistemic Communities(ECs), proposed by Ernst B. Hass and subsequently forwarded by John Ruggie and Peter Haas has been used as a theoretical explanation for this study. The concept is widely acclaimed within the constructivist school of IR which emphasizes the role of Ideas in inter-state relations. ECs are the nongovernmental channels or groupings of experts which influence official decision-making through their information function. Following the introductory part of the thesis embodying the rationale, argument and methodology of research, a discussion on Epistemic Communities comes next. The first chapter is titled, ‘Conceptualizing TrackII Processes as Epistemic Communities’ and provides a theoretical frame of reference for further discussion. It elaborates upon the concept of ECs, its emergence, evolution and relevance to International Relations followed by a brief explanation of Track-II process, their role and place in the IR discourse and how they qualify to be understood as epistemic communities. It links the two concepts to show that the role of nongovernmental actors can be well-explained by the Epistemic Community theory, as it is called at many places in the existing discourse.The title of Chapter 2 reads as, ‘Southeast Asia in the age of Comprehensive Security and ASEAN’s evolution’, and it talks about how the importance of regional cooperation in general and of that in Southeast Asia in particular has been reinforced in the age of Comprehensive Security. The first part explains the increasing significance of non-traditional security(NTS) issues, helping states to move beyond their obsessive concern with Traditional/military security and focus equally on both dimensions of the issue. Non-state origins and transnational nature of NTS issues reduce the effectiveness of individual responses, thus leaving cooperation as a better option especially in the case of geographically proximate states in a region having comparable concerns; ASEAN being the right example. The second part explains ASEAN’s success as an Institution by referring to its adaptability and flexibility which have allowed it to sustain itself by means of institutional consolidation and layering. ASEAN has reformed itself and broadened its scope, thus retaining its relevance amid dynamic environments and changing strategic needs. The chapter ends with a brief description of the various complex and interconnected non-traditional challenges faced by ASEAN in the last part.Chapter 3 is a follow on to the previous one; it talks about the ‘Idea of an ASEAN Community’, the next phase in ASEAN’s adaptation process. It is not a mere chronological description of events, but relates directly to the dissertation’s theme as reads the second part of its title, ‘Creating Space for Track-two phenomena’. Although Track-II actors existed even before, it was the proposal to build an ASEAN Community which mandated their increased participation based on a realization of their existence and contribution. The first part explains the blueprints for the three pillars of ASEAN community, i.e. ASEAN Political Security Community(APSC), ASEAN Economic Community(AEC) and ASEAN Socio-cultural Community(ASCC) which together set the pace towards an ASEAN that is more people-centric than state-centric. The second part explains the emergence and progress of the three track-two processes which are the particular focus of this study, the(ASEAN-ISIS), the ASEAN Civil Society Conference and the ASEAN People’s Assembly. This is followed by the last part which elaborates upon their role as Epistemic Communities by identifying the linkages through which each of these Track-II actors/processes connect with the Track-I in order to have an impact on decision-making.Chapter 4 provides a detailed analysis of the first of the three issues, ASEAN’s response to whom is being studied. The title of the Chapter is, ‘Role of Track II Channels in Promoting Regional Human Rights Regime’ and it talks about ASEAN’s slow but effective advancement towards a regime that calls for the promotion and protection of human rights. After a brief introduction about human rights and their importance, the first part of the chapter has elaborated upon the grave abuse and violation of these rights pervasive across Southeast Asia which was a main cause of International concern and criticisms directed at ASEAN. The second part has outlined ASEAN’s main achievements in the field of human rights; it explains how the association has managed to forge consensus and move ahead on an issue that was highly contentious not so long ago, and that too while keeping the ASEAN-way unaltered and intact. The last part is a detailed account of the role that Track-II processes have played in promoting the cause of human rights in ASEAN. A discourse analysis had been done to show the direct push which the three Track-II processes gave to the advancement of human rights, thus acting as a catalyst, speeding up the institutionalization of human rights in ASEAN.The title of the Chapter 5 is, ‘Regional Response to Climate Change Challenges and the Track-II Impetus’. As the title suggests, this second last chapter talks about ASEAN’s efficient adaptation to transnational challenges posed by climate change and how Track-II actors have played a part in this. Following a general introduction to global climate change concerns, the first part discusses climate change challenges and implications in the specific context of Southeast Asia. It talks about the factors underlying the region’s greater vulnerability to climate change and the impending need for greater intra as well as inter-regional cooperation. The Second part describes extent of intra-ASEAN collaboration on the issue by outlining the efforts and initiatives undertaken by the member states for devising an effective long-term strategy against the adverse impacts of climate change. The last part has researched and analyzed the role played by the three Track-II actors in encouraging ASEAN to build consensus and adopt common policies regarding the matter. Their narratives showing repeated concern for the severities of climate change and calls for adequate response have been identified through an analysis of the Track-II discourse. A greater push from these groupings helped in overcoming divergences in ASEAN by making members realize their collective vulnerability, which if left unchecked would bring equal suffering for all.The last Chapter is, ‘Track-II’s Insignificant Role in ASEAN’s CounterTerrorism Campaign’. The first part talks about the long association that terrorism has had with Southeast Asia and the predominant ways in which states responded to it as per differing threat perceptions and traditional understanding of terrorism as a domestic rather than an international issue. The second part discusses how the global macrosecuritization of terrorism post 9/11, and the subsequent labelling of Southeast Asia as the ‘second front in the war against terror’ challenged the prevailing regional understanding of the issue. ASEAN member states were forced to see it as a transnational rather than a local issue requiring inter-state cooperation as evident from the initial rhetorical commitments and collective response. But despite such need for collective action, little actual progress has been witnessed at the ASEAN level; limited role of track-II actors has been identified as the cause of this inaction and meagre progress, which has been elaborated in the last part of the chapter. Discourse analysis of the trackII activities is yet again referred to, this time to show their lesser commitment to ensuring regional cooperation for countering terrorism. The weaker or no push of nongovernmental actors on ASEAN regarding terrorism has been one of the responsible factors for ASEAN’s less coherent policy decisions on the issue, as compared to its elaborate policy responses to the other two issues, the causes of which were greatly and systematically pushed for by Track-II actors.Concluding remarks follow this last part and summarize the findings of this research. The discourse analysis has proven the assertion that Track-II actors promoted the causes of human rights and climate change more vigorously than that of counterterrorism, which in turn had an influence on ASEAN’s prioritization of the issues. This dissertation contributes to the discourse on the role of Track-II processes in IR in general and to one on their role in intra-regional cooperation in Southeast Asia in particular. It showed that these processes have played an important role in ensuring consensusbuilding and collective action on non-traditional security issues in ASEAN, especially since the emergence of the idea of an ‘ASEAN Community’. Had it been a study of ASEAN’s response to counter-terrorism or any other issue in isolation, other factors would have gained equal or greater explanatory power. But because this study compares the responses to three issues, differing roles of Track-II processes were found to have played a significant role. However, this research did not in any way challenge the statecentric nature of IR and decision-making prevailing in the region; only the possible role that non-state actors might play in complementing the formal policymaking processes has been inquired and elaborated. |
PDF Full Text Request