Home > Research > IDSS > About IDSS > IDSS-MacArthur Foundation Project > Annex
Annex 1
How has the growth of economic, political and military power transformed Beijing’s goals and strategic
calculations in handling regional security issues and key bilateral relations? To what extent have these
factors contributed to China’s diplomatic assertiveness in the past few years? How have regional states
and the United States perceived and reacted to the growth of China’s power?
These were among the crucial questions on growth of China’s power that were discussed at the
workshop on the Growth of China’s Power and Changing Security Dynamics in Asia, hosted by RSIS in
Singapore on 22 February 2013. The deliberations at the workshop were conducted by leading scholars
from Australia, China, Bangladesh, Japan, India, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, and the
United States.
In recent years, an increasing number of observers have begun to correlate China’s growing power with
its assertiveness in handling key security issues in Asia. As a result, the tone of recent media reports,
scholarly writings, and government documents on China’s role in regional security has predominantly
been pessimistic. The impetus for Washington’s newly launched strategic re-balance strategy towards
Asia could also be portrayed as partially in response to China’s growing economic and political, if not
security influence in the region. Moreover, regional states are increasingly pressured to take sides on
certain issues between Beijing and Washington. It remains to be seen how China will leverage on its
growing power and influence in the region in reaction to a rebalancing United States and how regional
states will respond to their great power rivalry.
Against this evolving regional political and security backdrop, this workshop sought to understand
whether and how the growth of China’s power has generated new security dynamics in Asia and to
evaluate China’s impact on the regional order.
Annex 2
RSIS held a workshop in Singapore on “The Potential Military Impact of Emerging Technologies in the
Asia Pacific” on 8 January 2013. This workshop brought together analysts and academics from North
America, Europe, and Asia to discuss how new technologies could affect regional security in the Asia
Pacific.
As Asian militaries continued to modernise at a rapid pace, the introduction of new critical technologies
could significantly affect the region’s military balance by providing some militaries with offensive
capabilities they did not previously possess – and, conversely, putting militaries that had not acquired
such technologies at a severe disadvantage.
The issues the workshop addressed included the meaning of “emerging” or “critical” technologies; the
kinds of new technologies most likely to have an impact on military advantage and, therefore, on the
balance of power in the Asia Pacific; the factors most likely to drive technology innovation and
exploitation; and the effect the unequal distribution of such technologies could have on military balances
in the Asia Pacific and, therefore, on balances of power (e.g., are less-technologically advanced states
doomed to military inferiority?)
Two key findings emerged from the workshop. The first was that many types of military-technological
innovations, commonplace in Western militaries, were probably sufficiently novel enough to have a
significant impact on Asia Pacific military capabilities. These technologies included advances in C4ISR
(command, control, communication, computing, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and
precision-guided munitions. In other words, technological innovations did not have to be “over the
horizon” in order to have a significant impact on military capabilities in Asia. Second, progress in
cyberwarfare was likely to emerge as the most critical “game-changer” when it came to generating military
advantage in the future.
Annex 3
RSIS convened a one-day workshop to examine Asia’s evolving maritime security environment. Featured
speakers presented their perspectives on the following questions: 1) Why are tensions among Asian
states currently playing out in the maritime domain, in particular? 2) How inter-connected are the various
disputes and flashpoints in Asia; what are the linking themes and players? 3) Which are the most
important triggers and localities for maritime conflict? 4) How can tensions be better managed? 5) How
will Asia’s maritime security environment evolve over a 10-year horizon?
Hugh White set the scene by highlighting the regional maritime power dynamics in the face of growing
maritime ambitions of existing and potential major powers, such as the United States, China, India,
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Indonesia. He posited that while globalisation continues, there is a
discernible shift in the distribution of strategic weight toward Asia, and questioned whether it will lead to a
strategic rivalry. White also argued that Asia would become a self-contained system in which the abovementioned states would interact more closely with each other than they do with other parts of the world.
Raja Mohan observed that China has gradually becoming more dominant in Asian waters. Although still
lagging behind the United States in naval terms, China has maintained a large degree of control in
Western Pacific. Although outside Asia, India and Australia participate in the East Asia Summit and seek
to influence the region as strategic actors in their own right. It was also argued that Japan needs to be
incorporated as an important regional player rather than remain on the fringes of East Asian strategy.
Much of the discussion focused on the discernible shift toward more traditional issues in the region, away
from non-traditional or transnational ones, which partly explained the nature of strategic trends in the
region. The growing influence of domestic politics and the role of the media are also shaping domestic
and international opinion on regional developments, which has in turn increased the pressure on policy
makers to publicly deal with sensitive maritime issues, such as territorial disputes. Mohan suggested that
there should be more assessments on how domestic politics influence foreign policy. Geoffrey Till closed
the discussion with the observation that regional countries, especially the major powers, are hedging their
bets against future uncertainties as displayed by their growing economic interaction, but at the same time,
preparing themselves for the possibility of maritime conflicts.