In Defense of "Talking Shop"

Much ink has been spilled about the ineffectual nature of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and these misgivings are understandable. The perception of ARF being an "obese assembly bloated with pompous rigidity" is also not without justification.

As a Jakarta Post editorial (July 31 2006) rightly pointed out, talk is cheap. But the corollary is that, while talk might indeed be cheap, not talking might turn out to be evidently more costly in the long run.

While I am not trying to come across as an apologist for the present limited achievements of the ARF, I am of the view that talking is still preferable to not talking, and talking is better than not knowing in further depth the views and standpoint of others. Not talking merely allows suspicion and distrust to build up, while face-to-face exchanges of security concerns can certainly help to reduce apprehensions and anxieties. Talking can also prevent member states from needlessly second-guessing the security intentions of their counterparts.

While "talking shop" should not be celebrated, neither should it be scoffed at or undermined.

Besides, some observers had also pointed out that the mere act of talking had raised the level of comfort within and allowed members states to raise otherwise taboo subjects.

The aim of the ARF was to build trust, confidence and ensure a more predictable pattern of relationships. Having largely achieved that, it is time to move on to playing the role of a more effective multi-lateral security forum with perhaps a tad more "bite".