Since December 2019, first China and then the world has been grappling with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even as the death toll due to the pandemic is increasing globally, it brings to the forefront issues relating to human security and how the threats from non-traditional security issues can ravage humanity. As for the regional outlook and the issues relating to security in Southeast Asia specifically, the spread of COVID-19 is bringing the focus back on issues of domestic politics especially related to health infrastructure and the domestic economy that has been critically impacted in the region. Responses of individual states in Southeast Asia has shown diversity and at the same time the move by the ASEAN and its East Asian partners to address a collective approach within the framework of the ASEAN plus Three provides useful insights for other regions.

Normally when a country or a state refers to ‘security’ it amounts to the areas of traditional security in which the state remains the principal referent point of security which means that the security of the state is viewed as the primary goal of the agencies of the state. This is often more entrenched in an understanding of the inviolability of territoriality and sovereign identity of the state structure itself. As a result any issues of security, in the traditional sense of the term, threaten the state and its core values. In the post-cold war period, this conceptual understanding of security has broadened to encompass different and diverse parameters –expanding the discipline of non-traditional security debates. This gave rise to the Human Security debate within the United Nations in 1994 when the UN Development Report of 1994 titled ‘Addressing New Dimensions of Human Security’ was tabled. It basically addressed that the threats to the state could be multidimensional, underlying the basic tenet that ‘the security of the state is dependent on the security of individual members of the state that are its citizens’.

Normally when a country or a state refers to ‘security’ it amounts to the areas of traditional security in which the state remains the principal referent point of security which means that the security of the state is viewed as the primary goal of the agencies of the state. This is often more entrenched in an understanding of the inviolability of territoriality and sovereign identity of the state structure itself. As a result any issues of security, in the traditional sense of the term, threaten the state and its core values. In the post-cold war period, this conceptual understanding of security has broadened to encompass different and diverse parameters –expanding the discipline of non-traditional security debates. This gave rise to the Human Security debate within the United Nations in 1994 when the UN Development Report of 1994 titled ‘Addressing New Dimensions of Human Security’ was tabled. It basically addressed that the threats to the state could be multidimensional, underlying the basic tenet that ‘the security of the state is dependent on the security of individual members of the state that are its citizens’.

As far as Southeast Asia is concerned the impact of non-traditional security is not new – for nearly the last two and half decades Southeast has been facing challenges from NTS issues. Both on the economic front and in terms of events relating to environmental hazards as well as health issues – these kinds of security challenges have been very evident in the region. In 1997 the region witnessed the Asian Financial Crisis one of the first impacts in the post-ColdWar period which rattled the region politically bringing huge changes, especially the transition to democracy in Indonesia. Shortly on the heels of the AFC the region struggled with the environmental haze which engulfed three of the regional states – Indonesia; Malaysia and Singapore. The forest fires from in Kalimantan and Sumatra have been impacting the region almost from 1997 intermittently till September 2019. While the domestic laws in Indonesia are in place to ensure that tracts of land are not cleared by burning the forests, there has been little enforcement of the law to deal with the problem. Apart from these the region has also witnessed the outbreak of Avian Flu and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2002.

As far as the current pandemic is concerned, the SARS COV 2 or COVID-19 has been relentless in its destruction which has led to the exposure of the unpreparedness ofStates and their efforts to manage this outbreak. Interestingly, the Southeast Asian region has been more prone to looking at security related matters from the prism of the primacy of the State. Over the years the notion of understanding the ASEAN way has rested upon the logic that non-interference and consensual decision making are core principles by which the ASEAN abides. Given this framework the option of finding common approach should be more difficult. However, on the matters of non-traditional security ASEAN has shown far greater leverage as a regional grouping than several other regional mechanisms.

In the current context of COVID-19, the role of Vietnam asthe ASEAN Chair has been critical in addressing the issue at a regional level. This response can be seen both within the ASEAN and in the context of the ASEAN+3 (East Asia). On 14 April the ASEAN Member States met through video conferencing for a special summit on the COVID-19 to address mechanisms within the ASEAN. The top areas of concern during this was to address that the region could effectively support the members in ensuring a regional supply of medical equipment, particularly the protective hazmat suits used by the frontline medical workers. Additionally the discussion also addressed the issue of unrestrained supplies of pharmaceutical products and medicines, and access to food.

On the very same day the ASEAN members also met with their East Asia Dialogue Partners – China, Japan and South Korea. This meeting’s core focus was on the impact that COVID-19 would have on the wider region and addresses areas of undisturbed flow of commodities, particularly food and medical supplies which would be needed to reduce any socioeconomic impact of the pandemic. Three clear areas of focus emerged from this meeting; first, there was an agreement on the need for information sharing among the countries to address gaps in knowledge related to best practices. Second the need to reinvigorate the AHA Center (ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management) with a specific focus on the need to advance a multilateral funding. In the aftermath of the AFC, the region had considered the formation of an Asian Monetary Fund, an idea mooted by Japan which fell through with opposition from the United States. Today even as the AIIB is lending to countries battling the COVID-9, there is a refocus on the need to ensure a multilateral and plurilateral exchange of funds to address the impact of the pandemic. Third, the immediate outcome of this meeting has been to formulate the ASEAN COVID-9 Response Fund to address shortages in medical supplies.

The most interesting dynamic that is revealed by this meeting is that even as the United States is reeling under the impact of the pandemic and its leadership is focusing on a blame game, Southeast Asia and East Asia seem to be taking steps in addressing the pandemic regionally. The impact of the fallout of the pandemic is likely to have far reaching consequences on the regional geopolitics.

Professor Shankari Sundararaman is Professor of Southeast Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.