The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1], based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, is renowned for its regular analysis of global developments, particularly focusing on the Middle-East, the Balkans, and other significant regions worldwide. A notable contribution comes from Dr. Phar Kim Beng, who is Professor of ASEAN Studies, IIUM from Kuala Lumpur. In his article, “Europe’s Real Chance is OSCE” dr. Phar Kim Beng explores the opportunity of OSCE to play the important part in institutionalization of cooperative security.
The future of European security depends on recognizing that cooperative security is the only sustainable approach to preventing conflict. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) provides a ready-made framework for de-escalation, but it has remained underutilized in favour of North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) threat-based security architecture. The result has been perpetual security dilemmas, particularly in Eastern Europe, where NATO expansion has triggered counter-reactions from Russia.
By contrast, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) diplomatic model, heavily influenced by the Helsinki Process (1972-1975), has managed to prevent a security dilemma in Southeast Asia—despite the existence of major territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
Rather than following the European pattern of securitizing every conflict, ASEAN has institutionalized a culture of trust and mutual accommodation among elites, leading to the avoidance of a regional arms race.
“The pre-CSCE (pre Helsinki) Europe was indeed a dangerous place to live in. The sharp geopolitical and ideological fault line was passing through the very heart of Europe, cutting it into halves. Southern Europe was practically sealed off by notorious dictatorships; in Greece (Colonel Junta), Spain (Franco) and Portugal (Salazar), with Turkey witnessing several of its governments toppled by the secular and omnipotent military establishment, with inverted Albania and a (non-Europe minded) non-allied, Tito’s Yugoslavia. Two powerful instruments of the US military presence (NATO) and of the Soviets (Warsaw pact) in Europe were keeping huge standing armies, enormous stockpiles of conventional as well as the ABC weaponry and delivery systems, practically next to each other. By far and large, European borders were not mutually recognized. Essentially, the west rejected to even recognize many of the Eastern European, Soviet dominated/installed governments” – reminds us professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic.
Despite the odds and animosities far larger than those of today, the OSCE was designed as the cornerstone of European security, yet its role has diminished as NATO has taken center stage. Its origins in the Helsinki Final Act (1975) provided a framework for cooperative security, requiring states to engage in confidence-building measures (CBMs) to prevent military escalation.
One of the most critical CBMs developed by the OSCE is the Vienna Document, which mandates military transparency—states must notify one another about military exercises, troop movements, and defense postures. Scholars argue that such transparency fosters “normative entanglement”, where adversaries remain institutionally bound to dialogue rather than confrontation.
However, since the 1990s, NATO expansion has undermined the OSCE’s cooperative model. Instead of fostering security through engagement, Europe has increasingly relied on deterrence through military buildup. This has contributed to a “threat spiral”, where states perceive insecurity, increase military spending, and force adversaries to do the same, ultimately destabilizing security rather than reinforcing it.
The reality is that Europe’s security concerns have been securitized, with policymakers reflexively seeking military solutions rather than diplomatic ones. This is why defense budgets continue to rise across the continent, despite the availability of non-military solutions through OSCE mechanisms.
Unlike Europe, ASEAN has learned from the Helsinki Process and applied its principles effectively. The ASEAN Way, a diplomatic framework grounded in consensus-building, has been key in preventing the type of security dilemmas that have plagued Europe.
A crucial component of ASEAN’s security strategy is ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality), which was established in 1971 to prevent external powers from militarizing Southeast Asia. This has been reinforced through Track 1 and Track 2 diplomacy, including forums like the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the East Asia Summit (EAS), and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus).
Rather than engaging in arms-race with China, ASEAN has opted for diplomatic engagement. For instance, despite China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, ASEAN has resisted pressures to militarize in response. Instead, efforts such as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (2002) and ongoing negotiations for a Code of Conduct (COC) have prevented conflict escalation. Scholars describe this as a “normative buffer”, where diplomatic measures act as a brake on military escalation. (Imagine the above-mentioned dynamic in European theatre: between the EU and Russia over the Black Sea and Ukraine.)
This approach has produced tangible results: Southeast Asia’s defence expenditures in 2024 actually decreased, even as tensions in the South China Sea persisted. In contrast, European defence budgets have risen sharply—a direct consequence of threat-based security thinking.
One of the most striking differences between ASEAN and the European security order is the role of elite trust. ASEAN operates through informal networks of elite accommodation, where personal relationships between leaders often override institutional rigidity.
Scholars highlight how ASEAN’s security culture is built on informal mechanisms rather than legalistic structures. Unlike the EU, which relies on treaty obligations, ASEAN’s diplomatic flexibility allows states to resolve disputes behind closed doors rather than through public escalations.
Similarly, others describe how ASEAN states prioritize de-escalation through informal political understandings rather than military deterrence. This prevents the kind of zero-sum security thinking that dominates European security debates.
A major factor behind ASEAN’s success is the absence of direct American security pressure. While the OSCE was originally designed to include transatlantic participation, it has been largely sidelined by NATO, where the U.S. has demanded that European states increase defense spending rather than invest in cooperative security mechanisms.
By contrast, ASEAN has retained a level of strategic autonomy, allowing it to pursue security through diplomacy rather than through U.S.-led military arrangements. This has allowed ASEAN to pursue CBMs freely, without external pressure to militarize. Meanwhile, in Europe, U.S. demands for burden-sharing have reinforced the military-first approach to security; pushing European states away from the OSCE’s cooperative model.
Despite current trends, Europe still has an opportunity to reintegrate OSCE principles into its security architecture. To do so, three critical steps must be taken:
The OSCE should be placed at the center of European security discussions, ensuring that CBMs and political dialogue take precedence over military deterrence.
2. Shift the EU’s Security Paradigm Away from Threat-Based Thinking
Instead of expanding toward NATO’s eastern frontier, the EU should create neutral security zones where OSCE mechanisms facilitate conflict de-escalation.
3. Rebuild Trust Through Elite Political Engagement
Europe lacks the informal trust networks that ASEAN has developed. Establishing regular informal summits modelled after ASEAN’s diplomatic process could help rebuild elite confidence.
Or, as Honourable Tan Sri Hasmy Agam has stated (with his co-author, prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic) in a seminal paper back in early 2020 (World on Autopilot): “… multilateralism – as the most effective planetary tool at our disposal – is not our policy choice. It is the only way for human race to (socio-economically and politically) survive… It is high time to switch off the autopilot. Courage, leadership, vision now!”
The OSCE remains Europe’s best opportunity to institutionalize cooperative security, yet it remains underutilized in favour of military alliances. Meanwhile, ASEAN’s adaptation of the Helsinki Process has successfully prevented the type of security dilemmas that continue to destabilize Europe.
Recalling the words of the legendary OSCE Secretary General, Lamberto Zannier (now at the IFIMES Institute, Director of Euro-Mediterranean Diplomacy and Intercultural Affairs - EDIA), the Organisation has the capacity and the historical duty to revisit, rethink and restructure Europe’s security architecture for the future.
Indeed, if Europe is serious about long-term peace, it must prioritize cooperative security through the OSCE—before the cycle of militarization through antagonising blocks becomes irreversible. Europe’s train back to the future is called OSCE.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IFIMES official position.
Buzan, B. (1998). Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Capie, D. (2010). The Asia-Pacific security lexicon. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Diez, T. (2007). Europe and the others: Identity politics in the new century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bajrektarevic, A. (2014). Critical Similarities and Differences in Security Structures of Asia and Europe, AEI, Kuala Lumpur, Occasional Paper 13.
Goh, E. (2007). Developing the Mekong: Regionalism and regional security in China-Southeast Asian relations. London: Routledge.
Harland, J. (2018). ASEAN and the limits of regional order: Conflict and cooperation in Southeast Asia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kivimäki, T. (2014). East Asian peace: Conflict prevention and informal peacebuilding. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Agam, H. & Bajrektarevic, A. (2020). World on Autopilot, IFIMES Institute, 4 XX 200405.
Ljubljana/ Kuala Lumpur, 13 March 2025
[1] IFIMES - International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal “European Perspectives”, link: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en
