Track 2 Security Dialogue in the Asia-Pacific: Reflections and Future Directions

Abstract

This article critically reviews the literature on Track 2 security dialogue in the Asia-Pacific and suggests a number of possible avenues for further research. From almost a standing start, Track 2 security dialogue in this part of the world has burgeoned over the past decade and a half. As these institutions and activities have grown, so too has a body of scholarship grown around them which has striven to stay abreast of them and -at least in the case of some of the more prominent second track institutions and activities -to evaluate their influence and effectiveness. Just as viable second track processes must constantly adapt in response to changes in the regional and global security environment, however, this article contends that the scholarship on Track 2 security dialogue needs now to evolve beyond its heavy emphasis upon on the "success" of these institutions and activities. While this criterion remains vital, the article argues that greater analytical attention should also be given to differentiating between the many and varied Track 2 security processes that are currently active in the Asia-Pacific; to developing a closer understanding as to the operating modalities of these institutions and activities; and to better comprehending longitudinal trends in regional Track 2 security dialogue. IntroductionFrom almost a standing start, Track 2 security dialogue in the Asia-Pacific has burgeoned over the past decade and a half. 1 Although this growth has not been linear, the recent emergence of a host of "new" security challenges -including increased fears of terrorism in the region; the advent of a number of non-traditional security challenges, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Avian Influenza; and a growing interest in the notion of East Asian Community (EAC) building -appear to have breathed new life into the Track 2 endeavor. So much so that, according to one recent estimate, the number of second track processes engaged in the discussion of AsiaPacific security issues now numbers close to 150. 2 As Track 2 security dialogue in the Asia-Pacific has grown, so too has a body of scholarship grown around it which has strived to stay abreast of this increase in activity and -at least in the case of some of the more prominent second track processes -to evaluate their influence and effectiveness. The primary purpose of this article is to critically review that literature and to suggest a number of possible avenues for future research.

China's Maritime Security and the “Malacca Dilemma”

“…Not only can intergovernmental dialogue be useful in discussing this issue, but the continuing use of informal, Track II regimes in the Asia-Pacific, a practice which has flourished over the past two decades, 70 would be beneficial here. Due to their non-binding nature and common practice of consensus-building, discussions of Pacific Rim maritime safety can be undertaken while leaving aside or at least downplaying the often divisive area of offshore border demarcation.…”

Engagement or Entrapment? Scholarship and Policymaking on Asian Regionalism

“…Institution‐building has spurred, both proactively and reactively, considerable research and dialogue activity. Track‐two dialogues on regional security issues, broadly defined, have especially proliferated, from less than 10 per year in 1989 to over 250 in 2008 (Ball, Anthony, and Taylor 2006:186; Japan Center for International Exchange 2009).…”

“…In such cases, the role scholars and policy intellectuals is limited largely to providing background information to policymakers, rather than debating and advocating specific policy positions, or publicly contesting government positions. Track‐two dialogues in Asia, dependent as they are “upon the consent, endorsement and commitment, often including financial commitment, of governments,” (Harris 1994:390) suffer from a failure of their participants to rise above national sentiments and positions (Ball et al. 2006).…”

Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region

“…5 These include the ASEAN Institutes for Strategic and International Studies, which was one of the few facilitators of regional security dialogue prior to the 1990s; the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific (CSCAP), arguably the region's premier second track institution and with whose development the SDSC has been intimately involved; the relatively new Network of East Asian Think Tanks (NEAT), which some analysts regard as a potential (Chinese-led) challenge to more established second track processes such as CSCAP; as well as the annual International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-la Dialogue, which takes place in Singapore and has essentially become a de facto gathering of regional defence ministers. 6 Yet, this startling growth in regional security cooperation has been neither steady nor straightforward. The volume of such institutions and activities plummeted in the immediate aftermath of the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, for instance, and temporarily lost the attention of policymakers in the process.…”