empty talk about confidence building measures. quite lame
rhetoric.
S’pore proposes 3 levels of military transparency to enhance
defence cooperation http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singapor…
SINGAPORE : Singapore has proposed three
levels of military transparency to enhance defence cooperation
amongst countries.
The suggestion was made on the final day of the Asia-Pacific
Security Summit – also dubbed the Shangri-La Dialogue – where
tackling terrorism and strengthening the region’s defence diplomacy
were also discussed.
Military transparency is not an end in itself, says Singapore’s
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean. He said it serves a larger
objective.
Mr Teo said: “What are you trying to achieve? That is the first
question. What are your underlying assumptions, which is the second
question. If your underlying assumption is that you cannot resolve
your differences, then all that transparency can hope to achieve is
to try and find out who you think your potential enemy is going to
be.
“And under such circumstances, of course he is not going to tell
you what he has and vice versa. Then you only try to reduce the
accidents, that is about all. If that is the limit of your
aspiration, then transparency is also limited by my aspiration. But
if your aspiration is more than that, if your aspiration is to
create cooperation, trust and confidence, then you can aim for a
higher level of transparency.”
So, the first level of transparency is disclosing one’s
armaments and arsenals. Making known information about one’s
military programmes, military expenditure, and arms exports and
imports could reduce the likelihood that such programmes would be
destabilising.
Mr Teo elaborated: “In the Asia Pacific, there has been a degree
of such disclosure. The ASEAN Regional Forum
(ARF) has supported the UN Register on Conventional Arms since
1994. The ARF Annual Security Outlook reports
seek to enhance the level of information sharing. The more recent
Voluntary Briefings at the ASEAN Defence
Ministers’ Meetings (ADMM) complement this process.
“States that have yet to avail themselves of these opportunities
should be encouraged to do so, making such transparency a norm in
the region. States also contribute to this first level of
transparency by arranging for visits to military facilities, and
making regular public statements about military procurements, plans
and activities.”
But it is not merely about counting what others have or knowing
their capabilities.
Mr Teo explained: “North Korea can tell all of us, ‘yes I am
going to conduct a nuclear test next week, I am going to fire a
long range missile’; that is completely transparent. Does that make
you feel happier or does that make you feel more secure?
Neither.
“If somebody tells you ‘my intention is to stockpile a thousand
nuclear warheads over the next 15 years’, does that make you more
secure? I do not think so. So it is sort of a fallacy to blindly
equate transparency to security, it is not sufficient.”
Therein comes the next step – countries must articulate their
security concerns clearly in order to reassure others.
Mr Teo said: “Take a scenario where a state has decided to
increase its military spending and the capability of its military
because it decides that its defence needs have grown. This could be
because the pattern of its trade and energy supply routes has
altered fundamentally, or that new areas have been developed, or
shifts in population have occurred.
“Or another scenario where a few states decide to cooperate to
increase their ability to improve security, for example, in the sea
lanes. Although that state or these states may consider this
self-defence or cooperative security, others may perceive it
differently, and this may lead to doubts, suspicion and
insecurity.
“When we better understand the concerns that we might have about
each other, we can more confidently find ways to take these
concerns into account and reassure each other. Where we have common
concerns, we can find ways to cooperate meaningfully. This second
level of transparency can be done through the publication of White
Papers, government statements or interviews and dialogues between
states.”
Meanwhile, the British defence secretary said that another
element of military transparency is public communications and this
is to keep the public well-informed of a country’s military
deployments to different parts of the world, to bring about
international peace and security.
Baroness Ann Taylor, UK International Defence and Security
Minister, said: “We have to explain to a sometimes sceptical public
why counter terrorism operations in Afghanistan are critical to
stopping terrorism on our streets. We have to explain why
countering piracy, stopping people trafficking or stemming the tide
of the drugs trade, is essential work for domestic security.”
Finally, Mr Teo said military transparency is about cooperative
action which contributes directly to regional security, like those
seen in the Gulf of Eden and Malacca Straits.
Mr Teo said: “Looking ahead, Singapore is working to build a
multilateral framework for maritime information sharing and
cooperation which is open and inclusive. Interested countries can
participate by linking their maritime operations centres, sharing
information, and having liaison officers to utilise the Information
Fusion Centre at the new Changi Command and Control Centre which is
being completed this year.” – CNA/yb/ms
