If a regional cooperative security arrangement were to come into fruition in South Asia, it could potentially be coined as South Asian Security Initiative (SASI). Although no such arrangement is in the offing, it is about time the members states of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) began exploring the possibilities and opportunities that lie in such an arrangement. And the Security Sector Reform (SSR) project in Nepal could possibly provide the platform for regional cooperation on security agendas.

The concept of "collective security" has evolved since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. But, it was only after the two menacing World wars of the 20th century that the concept gained wider appeal. As sovereignty and territorial integrity became inviolable and sacrosanct, the idea of a consensual coalition between states and to come to each other's defence when these ideals came under attack, naturally became a welcome safeguard. And the concept was realized, in part, through the formation of the United Nations.

This global collective security arrangement, however, has not been re-assuring for many states. Despite being under the UN umbrella, states have still sought to develop further reassuring mechanisms to ensure their security. This is mainly because the pursuit of power, hegemony and national interests has repeatedly trumped over the collective security principle of "all for one and one for all." But, it is also because states have discovered that cooperative regional approaches were more reliable, pragmatic and feasible in enhancing their security.

As states have increasingly coalesced to form cooperative regional coalitions, there have been other parallel developments. With the end of the cold-war, the global political order changed and so did the paradigm of security. Globalization has led to a surge in interdependency. As conventional military threats that once dominated the security realm began to recede, other threats like global warming, terrorism, health endemics, which are more asymmetrical, complex and transnational in nature, have come to the forefront. Therefore, as the threats become more transnational in nature, the capacity of individual states to unilaterally mitigate these threats is diminishing.

In addition, the horizon of the "security" has broadened significantly as it has begun to encompass other social, economic and even psychological aspects. As the threat of inter-state war slowly diminishes, the norm of security too began to shift from the traditional state centric military connotation to embrace ideas of "human security" and "human rights."

This has blurred the concept of collective security and made a "cooperative security" arrangement more appropriate. Cooperative security signifies the cooperation between states to deal with threats and challenges that are non-state and less-military in nature.

Regional groupings have increasingly realized this transformative aspect of security and responded befittingly. NATO is trying to expand its horizon by including more members and has begun focusing on more than just the military discourse. The ASEAN member states have recently agreed to establish the ASEAN Security Community (ASC). Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was founded in 1996 with the main purpose of working cooperatively on security agendas. Even the African Union (AU) has decided to form its security council to cooperate on security agendas.

SSR in a nutshell:

Security Sector Reform (SSR) is a fairly new, ambiguous and still evolving concept. Till date, there is still no universally accepted definition of SSR. Clearly, the concept is lacking a comprehensive and coherent framework. There is no distinctive operational guideline nor are there any endorsed normative principles of SSR.

Despite the lack of a coherent framework for SSR, however, there is tacit agreement amongst theorists and practitioners on some basic fundamentals. Essentially, there is convergence on five tenets.

First, the SSR as a concept is mainly envisaged for fragile and post-conflict societies. Second, the security sector is effectively categorized into four categories: a) core security actors, b) Security management and oversight bodies, c) justice and law enforcement institutions and d) Non-statutory security forces. Third, the process entails capacity building, developing oversight mechanisms, and raising the accountability standards of all the entities that are even in the faintest way involved with the security aspect. Fourth, the overarching objective of the process is to consolidate peace, prosperity and democracy by ensuring that the various security institutions perform their statutory functions effectively and efficiently. Fifth, SSR should always be a national initiative but will require a synergy between national actors and international donors.

SSR can range from a limited to a limitless concept. From a maximalist viewpoint, the agenda almost overlaps the state-building formula. In a post conflict context, state-building mainly refers to the process undertaken to revitalize the society (fragile, failing or failed) by erecting robust political, social and economic orders. Since the cardinal function of any state is to provide security to its citizens, none of these processes can be rendered attainable without security. Also, the four SSR categories illustrate how the state-building process entails the aspects that are encapsulated in SSR agenda. A minimalist approach, however, could confine the parameters to reform of the core security actors or the non-statutory security forces.

Another aspect of SSR that is worthy of mentioning is DDR (disarmament, demobilization and reintegration). There is quite a bit of confusion between DDR and SSR. Some treat DDR and SSR as two completely separate disciplines while some take the completion of DDR as a precondition for initiating the SSR agenda.

A simple analysis, however, will reveal that DDR falls within the ambit of SSR. DDR is a post-conflict process required to consolidate peace and improve the security environment. Arguably, any measure taken to improve the security of the state automatically falls within the SSR realm. Also, DDR directly involves the Core security actors and Non- statutory security forces that are outlined in the SSR agenda.

Why the regional approach?

Every single state in South Asia is riddled with some sort of strife, violence or conflict. Five out of eight states in the region fall in the top 25 list of failed states. A frosty relationship between India and Pakistan still persists and makes the threat of a nuclear war all too real. India and Pakistan are both plagued by numerous extremist and separatist groups. The Economist has ranked Pakistan as the most dangerous state in the world. Afghanistan has been one of the most fragile and deadly states for decades. The festering civil war of Sri-Lanka is certainly one of the bitterest and longest. Nepal has just endured a decade long brutal insurgency. Bangladesh is home to numerous militant groups and the country has a long history of civil-military tension. Although Bhutan and Maldives have remained out of the spotlight, both countries have considerable political and social friction. 

Ironically, however, this fragile region has taken the lead in shouldering the task of global peace operations. Today Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal are amongst the top five manpower contributors to UN led peace operations. If Sri-Lanka were to be added to this list, 37.6% of the total manpower for UN peace operations is currently fielded by the South Asian region.

The imperative of a regional cooperative security arrangement is manifested primarily by the above mentioned facts. As there remains a senseless chasm between the regional need and regional capability, the exigency to engage in a regional cooperative security arrangement is thus self explanatory.

SSR project in Nepal could appropriately serve to bridge that gap. The regional approach would be a win-win situation for all. The SSR project would effectively utilize the regional potential and contribute towards enhancing the regional security and stability. Of course, Nepal will gain considerably from this endeavour as it would provide a more sustainable guarantee and ensure compliance from national actors. As for the assisting member states, it would be a great learning experience. This would help them develop expertise in the SSR discourse, which could in turn be employed in their respective national contexts as well as in international theatres. 

Another factor calling for a regional engagement is actually the proper lack of UN's institutional capacity. Till date, the member states of the UN have not reached a consensus on the concept of SSR. Although the report of the Secretary General on "the role of the United Nations in supporting security sector reform" was released in January 2008 to encourage and facilitate the consensus building process, there are still no agreed upon principles, standards, policies or guidelines on SSR. Furthermore, according to a report released by "Security Council Report," - a non-profit entity, there is actually an acute shortage of SSR capacity and expertise in and outside the UN.

SSR in Nepal is a marvellous opportunity for South Asian states to come together for a common purpose and mark a new beginning of greater regional cooperation. Such an engagement will provide a great learning opportunity which could actually be used in their respective national contexts and to build UN's institutional capacity as well. Also, since states make up the international political system, insecurity of one state has translational implication and effects. Hence, a pragmatic approach to creating a more secure globe is by improving the security of individual states. For all its novelty value, such an engagement would not only breed a spirit of regional solidarity, but it would ultimately bring the globe one step closer towards peace.

[Thapa lives in New York and can be reached at chiranjthap@hotmail.com]

News Briefs

Maoists set May 27 as deadline for King Gyanendra to leave Narayanhiti Palace: The CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda said that he has sent a message to King Gyanendra, suggesting that he leave the Narayanhiti Palace by May 27, 2008, a day before the first sitting of the Constituent Assembly (CA) formally abolishes monarchy and declares the country a republic. Prachanda also warned that the King could face a forceful eviction from the palace if he refused to quit voluntarily. "We have advised him to live like a commoner or else we will have to use force to kick him out," Prachanda said on May 13. Nepal News, May 14, 2008.

[Source: South Asian Intelligence Review]