Does ASEAN need a security mechanism like NATO?

Professor Pham Quang Minh, an expert in international relations and Rector of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities - Vietnam National University, Hanoi, answered that question with multifaceted arguments in an interview with TG&VN on the sidelines of the international scientific conference "Cooperation and Integration in the Baltic and Southeast Asian Regions from a Comparative Perspective".

Professor Pham Quang Minh answers questions on the sidelines of the seminar on similarities and differences between ASEAN and the Baltic region. (Photo: PH)

Sir, NATO has just gone through a "sad birthday," and the question of NATO's continued existence is being raised again. What are your thoughts on this issue?

In fact, the question of NATO's existence has been raised since the end of the Cold War. Currently, NATO is going through a crisis period despite having a new mission, different from the Cold War era. The current problem is the cohesion within NATO, as its "captain" – the US – is criticizing members for not fully fulfilling their obligations and raising defense spending by 2%. Only about a quarter of NATO members are fulfilling this responsibility, thus creating a rift within NATO. NATO member states, including those in the EU, are increasingly inclined to form their own security forces, less dependent on the US and other nations.

So, it's clear that NATO is also posing a challenge to the Baltic states themselves? Does ASEAN also face similar challenges from the security mechanisms that ASEAN itself has created, sir?

The first challenge facing both the Baltic and Southeast Asian regions is the increase in traditional and non-traditional security risks, including sovereignty disputes, maritime borders, environmental issues, economic problems, and migration – new dimensions of security concerns. Secondly, there is the question of what mechanisms will address these security issues. In fact, the Baltic region has a distinct advantage: the multilateral security cooperation mechanism of NATO. Currently, ASEAN lacks such a mechanism, only existing within the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) or the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Forum (ADMM+). The Baltic region has a very robust security mechanism like NATO, which has existed since the 1940s, while ASEAN lacks a robust security mechanism. However, both regions share the commonality that their existing mechanisms have yet to resolve the security challenges they face. In the Baltic Sea region, the number of conflicts and tensions is even higher than before the Cold War. Therefore, the lesson is that countries must continue to strengthen multilateral cooperation, even though multilateralism is currently being challenged globally. It is the large countries with significant economic and military potential that are challenging multilateralism, posing threats to regional security instead of taking the lead and developing initiatives and mechanisms for security cooperation.

According to you, what role do small and medium-sized countries like Vietnam play in building security institutions?

It is true that large powers always play an important role; during the Cold War, it was the US and the Soviet Union. Today, that remains true, with the addition of China and the BRICS nations, who will undoubtedly play a significant leading role in creating a peaceful environment. However, we must not forget that small and medium-sized countries are now playing an equally important role. I want to emphasize the role of ASEAN. As a regional organization with 10 small and medium-sized countries, ASEAN, since 1967, has introduced many initiatives, standards, and values ​​that have been accepted by large powers, such as the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (TAC), the Regional Security Forum, and the East Asia Summit (EAS). This demonstrates ASEAN's dynamism and its ability to adapt and adjust its policies to the changing global situation. Thus, small and medium-sized countries, including Vietnam, have consistently demonstrated a new stance and position as highly responsible, proactive, and assertive nations in international cooperation, contributing to regional peace and security. We need to further promote this in the future.

So, does ASEAN really need a model like NATO?

This issue depends on history, international experience, and the consensus of countries in the region. To date, ASEAN's unwavering principles are consensus and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. These two principles were established in 1976 and have proven effective. Among ASEAN countries, there have been no wars or conflicts to date; the situation has been very volatile. ASEAN's greatest success to date is the peaceful resolution of the Cambodian issue between 1979 and 1991. Now, ASEAN still needs to consider a multilateral security mechanism like NATO because the history of ASEAN countries shows that sovereignty is extremely important, having endured countless hardships to achieve peace and independence, and the process of nation-building is still ongoing. Therefore, to date, ASEAN has only offered one model: building the ASEAN Community based on three pillars, the most important of which is political-security. This pillar is perfectly suited to ASEAN's conditions and context. A military organization like NATO is perhaps not yet appropriate or necessary. If the political-security Community pillar is successfully implemented, ensuring a peaceful environment free from war, and allowing people to live in prosperity, then the current needs of ASEAN countries will be met.

How do you assess the way our country deals with major powers?ASEAN?

I believe that the concept of self-reliance is always important in foreign policy. Most NATO members are economically powerful nations, unlike ASEAN countries which are generally less developed. Therefore, achieving self-reliance and independence from the influence of major powers is difficult, not to mention the power competition between major powers like the US and China. ASEAN countries have implemented very skillful policies, creating their own standards to draw major powers in, creating a playing field where major powers cannot pursue their own agendas independently but are forced to consider their own interests as well as the interests of other major powers, thus reducing the likelihood of conflict in the region.

What should Vietnam do when assuming the ASEAN chairmanship in 2020 to work with other member states to build a peaceful and stable environment for ASEAN's development?

The most important issue facing ASEAN today, especially for Vietnam during its chairmanship in 2020, is regional consensus. ASEAN's weakest point is its failure to reach common views and understandings on regional issues. For example, in the case of the South China Sea, only four ASEAN countries are involved (Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei), while the remaining six tend to view it as a bilateral issue. Therefore, many ASEAN countries pay little attention to the South China Sea. In this context, Vietnam must create consensus on this issue, treating it as a regional problem because any conflict in the South China Sea would affect all ASEAN countries. It must guide countries to understand that regional interests should be prioritized over national interests. Furthermore, Vietnam needs to strengthen connectivity and narrow the development gap within the bloc. ASEAN businesses should increase investment in each other and implement multilateral agreements in which ASEAN participates, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Thank you very much, Professor!