“SEA states have been effective in dealing with conflicts to protect regional peace and stability.” Discuss the validity of the statement from 1960 to 1997. Intro
Indicators of effectiveness: Decreased duration, intensity and frequency of conflicts, or complete removal of conflicts Thesis: Realizing that decreased conflict would lead to overall regional peace and stability, SEA states have largely been able to address conflicts that state countries have interests in resolving. However, if the issue appears to largely jeopardize national interests at the expense of conflict resolution, then SEA states would be ineffective in dealing with such sources of tensions. 1. SEA states have largely been able to deal with ideological conflicts arising between two states, due to common interests to protect government legitimacy, thus ensuring stability in the region. * Presence of common ideological threat for both states threatened their government legitimacy, which was perceived by leaders of both states to be a pressing issue that they had to resolve * Thus, as they were willing to co-operate to remove the ideological threat to the incumbent government, regional stability could be ensured, as there was now a reduced possibility of political instability arising from the rise of alternative political ideologies. * EG The occasional resurgence of the Communist Party of Thailand and the Communist Party of Malaysia along the Thai-Malaysian border resulted in a threat against the incumbent governments, serving as an alternate political ideology, thus undermining the Malaysian and Thai governments’ legitimacy and internal security. This fear spurred both countries to co-operate to undermine the communist pressure, by strengthening security co-operation with the exchange of information. The eventual diminishment of communist insurgencies led to peace in the region, with the removal of conflicting ideologies in the area. * EG The communist threat in Malaysia and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document