@Waylander
Thank you for educating our younger thread participants. You input is always welcomed and you have not interrupted this thread.
In support of your post, I want to point out that:
(i) In 1991, Malaysia and Indonesia have conducted a joint military exercise, codenamed Malindo Darsasa 3AB. It involved an airborne assault by paratroopers in southern Johor. If the name of the airborne assault, codenamed Pukul Habis (Malay for 'Total Wipeout'), as well as the choice of a drop zone just 18km from Singapore, were not sufficiently provocative, the scheduling of the airdrop on Aug 9th - Singapore's 26th National Day - most certainly was. The SAF's response was measured and we triggered an open mobilisation in response.
(ii) According to a senior Malaysian military officer, the MAF was put on alert in late 1998 (slightly more than 10 years ago) as politicians on both sides of the Causeway argued over the status of a CIQ checkpoint. News articles from the period chronicle the public exchanges, but say nothing of the defence postures that the SAF and MAF adopted during this period.
For details, please read the full story by
David Boey. Thankfully, Malaysia-Singapore relations are much improved since Dr. M left office. OTOH, Indonesia-Singapore relations are not doing as well given the
Feb 2007 sand dispute issue. However, we are trying to mend fences, having just solved a boundary dispute by negotiation in Feb 2009 (which the Jakarta Post acknowledges to be at the
absolute disadvantage to Singapore). For more details, see my post #106 in the
RSN thread. So in short, there is much less trust in ASEAN compared to Europe.
Indeed Burma is the black sheep among ASEAN.
With their size of land & population you cannot ignore them, but as long as they do not start some reforms (even small ones) there is no way for further integration. The situation in Burma plays in the hand of many outsiders, who want to see ASEAN as weak union..
Maybe situation will change after 2010. But I have a feeling that they are already a "province" of the PRC.
@Crunchy,
I am really pleased at how well the original ASEAN 6 are getting along with Vietnam in contrast to Myanmar. And Myanmar is really our black sheep.
Indeed Burma is the black sheep among ASEAN.
With their size of land & population you cannot ignore them, but as long as they do not start some reforms (even small ones) there is no way for further integration. The situation in Burma plays in the hand of many outsiders, who want to see ASEAN as weak union..
Maybe situation will change after 2010. But I have a feeling that they are already a "province" of the PRC.
If we push Myanmar away, we will just push them into the open arms of China. OTOH, if we do nothing, Myanmar is like a stone tied around ASEAN's neck. So we have to
decide what to do. ASEAN's problem is that we do not have a stick but also do not have enough carrots, let me explain:
(i) ASEAN members do not have the will to invade/fight with Myanmar so we do not have a stick.
(ii) The problem is that ASEAN itself does not have enough carrots (our ability to offer aid, trade and weapons) to get Myanmar to change.
Our technological & industrial base is currently not large enough to create our own def industry.
But if member states would procure new systems together, we could put more pressure on the supplier('s nation) for:
-local assembling ( first step to independence)
-barter trade (some members are short on hard currency)
-offset
-relieve political pressure (from the supplier & buyer) -> less political dependence
By local assembling, I think you mean licensed manufacturing and that is being done in Malaysia for items like the M4 and some other products. I'm not sure about other similar initiatives by other ASEAN countries.
However, if we talk about purchasing or manufacturing sophisticated engineering based systems, like naval ships,
Brunei and
Malaysia have faced some problems. OTOH, Singapore is recognized as a smart buyer, integrator and user of weapons systems. Further, we have some capability to build/design our own weapons and weapons systems, including NATO standard ammunition.
The problem is that most of the weapons systems and ammunition that Singapore make are too expensive for other ASEAN members to buy. What some ASEAN countries want is for Singapore to 'sell' (not at a market rate) or give weapons (such as artillery guns and even rifles). Take for example, we have a problem with the Indonesian navy and they are not very nice even after we give things to them (to build relationship and as a reward).
I am not keen for ASEAN countries to engage in barter trade or
offsets to buy/sell weapons or ammunition. This sort of ideas will lead to even more corruption as it provides middlemen an opportunity to take a larger cut. Further, Singapore can sell our weapons for money (such as the
Warthog and our
locally designed LPD), so why would we want to be paid by counter trade?
Further, there are mind-set differences between Vietnam and Singapore in defence matters. Singapore can make navy ships for Vietnam but Vietnam will not want to buy them. This is because Vietnam will not understand Singapore's western style navy, which is designed to be interoperable with the USN and RAN. The RSN values automation (Vietnam has more than enough people), electronic warfare (to jam missiles attacking us), advanced electronics and communications systems (to link our ships, submarines, UAVs, USVs, fighters and AWACs), whereas Vietnam just wants cheap and good ocean patrol vessels. We are also a heavy user of UAVs and USVs. Just like cars, why buy a Toyota Camry with an expensive hifi set (like a Singapore designed navy ship) when you can buy a motorbike.
Even our Victory Class corvettes that were commissioned in the 1990s (which we think is becoming out-dated) have too much expensive features for the Vietnam navy (weapons, sensors and electronics is where things get really expensive). In many ways, more important than price, it is a mind-set difference that prevents Vietnam's armed forces from inter operating with the SAF. We have a western mind-set and Vietnam has a Russian equipment mindset. It will take 10 to 20 years of development before your generals will believe that wars can be fought our way. Besides, your generals will tell our generals: What do you know? Singapore has never fought a war.
I want to be optimistic about prospects for security cooperation in ASEAN but I also have to be realistic about the scope of cooperation.
