Emerging Connectivity of Regional Disaster Management?

最近參加了MCSS的non-traditional security seminar，甫完成一篇短文。我發現有一段蠻長的時間沒有繼續記載自己對東南亞研究的心得，我想，類似的工作應該還是要繼續下去。以下是轉載於MCSS網站的拙文，我將POLICY RECOMMENDATION的部份省略，有興趣的朋友請參見MCSS的網頁，內容有詳載。

Alternative Security Threats in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asian countries have been suffered from drastic global climate change for years. The loss of lives, properties and livelihoods caused by natural disasters is inestimable. Tsunamis, earthquakes, floods and the transnational hazes, to some extent, have unswervingly challenged either institutional or environmental capacity of governments in the region. For example, the Cyclone Nargis, which struck Myanmar devastatingly in 2008, had resulted in more than tens thousands of deaths. At the very moment, Burmese military junta was incapable of coping with this unprecedented disaster, let alone the efforts of post-disaster-reconstruction. An international emergency relief from ASEAN, UN and international society, therefore, is in great demand. Another case is Philippine. In 2009, Luzon Island was severely hit by typhoons one after another, one of which even caused a serious flooding in Manila. In Southeast Asia, catastrophe like this occurs time after time, turning into an alternative security threats to regional states and their people.

Regional Connectivity: A New Idea From Within

Touching upon this natural disaster in terms of non-traditional security threat, the very notion of it is the "international externality." Since most of the East Asian states are geographically connected to each other, no single country could solely protect itself against disastrous natural catastrophes. Moreover, none of them would claim that there is no need for international cooperation on disaster monitoring, risk reduction, international relief, and post-disaster reconstruction. In this regard, an initiative of regional disaster management mechanism (or policy framework) seems to be a primary requisite for further regional governance in East Asia.

On 25th October 2009, the leaders of East Asia Summit (EAS) gathered in Thailand and approved the "Cha-am Hua Hin Statement on EAS Disaster Management," the purpose of which is to enhance the collaborative efforts in the region to mitigate the negative impacts of natural catastrophes. The regional agenda of disaster management envisaged by the Statement is mainly based on ASEAN-centered network. This emerging framework, to some extent, echoes the proposal of "ASEAN Connectivity" advocated by Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva during the 15th ASEAN Summit, that is, the realization of "A Community of Action," "A Community of Connectivity," and "A Community of People."

Power Politics and the Making of a Regional Community

Undoubtedly, enhancing intra-ASEAN integration will benefit the EAS region. For most ASEAN states, especially to those seriously damaged by natural and transboundary disasters, the lack of fiscal resources and incapability of good governance remain problematic. Hence, promoting "regional connectivity," from ASEAN countries in the very beginning and then expanding to EAS members, could be a pragmatic and strategic approach to incorporate extra-regional supports from Japan, Australia, China and other key members in EAS with existing ASEAN mechanisms.

Any new regional initiative on community-building needs "bones" and "flesh." "Cha-am Hua Hin Statement on EAS Disaster Management," which was approved by EAS members, unveils several regional attempts and mechanisms to tackle disastrous catastrophes. The ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre) is anticipated to operate as a hub. Moreover, the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), the ASEAN Standby Arrangements for Disaster Relief and Emergency Response, the ASEAN Regional Disaster Emergency Response Simulation Exercise (ARDEX), and the ongoing ASEAN Standard Operating Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangement and Coordination of Joint Disaster Relief and Emergency Response Operations (SASOP) lay the groundwork for ASEAN disaster management. These mechanisms, which ASEAN admitted as "work in progress," are the "bones" of the emerging regional community of disaster management. Apparently, it needs more supports, either fiscal budgets or political wills, from its counterparts. The devotions of EAS participating members, therefore, could be the "flesh."

One thing to remind, even though East Asian powers appear to act as "assiduous participants" in EAS cooperation and "let" ASEAN (small) states profit from the "patronized" relationship, the real intentions of these powers, however, are by no means altruistic. For countries like Japan and China, confrontations among diverse national interests will inevitably lead to the power struggle for leadership in East Asian community. Once the policy framework and institutional setting of disaster management, as well as the idea of community are possessed by dominant powers, the underlying East Asian connectivity may curtail ASEAN's influence and erode its role as a driving force. Clearly, power politics matter, not only in high politics, but also in welfare politics.

Policy Recommendations

PLEASE REFER TO MCSS WEBSITE.