home << newsletters << December 2001 index << Building A Conceptual Model of Regional Stability
 

Newsletter:  Dec 2001/ Issue 1
Building A Conceptual Model of Regional Stability:  The Workshop Series on Stability in Northeast Asia

In June, the last of the three-part Workshop Series on Stability in Northeast Asia took place in Falls Church, Virginia. The series was a collaborative effort led by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisitions, Technology & Logistics), with the assistance of the US Pacific Command, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, US Air Force and US Department of Energy to create a conceptual model of regional stability for Northeast Asia, applicable to other regions. The workshops built upon an earlier study conducted by PNNL on the connections between environmental issues and security in the Sea of Japan region. The study sought to enhance understanding of regional dynamics in Northeast Asia through identifying the full spectrum of factors that influence regional stability, their variables, and interactions. The resulting conceptual model is intended to identify foci particularly susceptible to change within the region, gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts of policy and actions in the region, and provide insight useful in the development of effective confidence and security-building measures. Also, baseline information from the workshops can be used to develop regional simulations and war games.

For the purpose of the workshops, Northeast Asia is defined as North Korea, South Korea, Japan, northeastern China and the Russian Far East. Northeast Asia was chosen as the region of focus because of its strategic importance to the US: the region plays an important role in the US’ $500 billion per year Asia trans-Pacific trade; two of the world’s largest economies are located in Northeast Asia; and the region is host to high-profile issues such as the possible unification of the Korean Peninsula, China-Taiwan relations, and implementation of the Agreed Framework in North Korea.

In addition, the US has security agreements with South Korea and Japan under which 100,000 US troops are stationed in the region. Northeast Asia contains two of the world’s five recognized nuclear powers. And, Russia and China both hold permanent seats in the UN Security Council.

The Workshop Series on Stability in Northeast Asia focused on regional stability as a means of strengthening global security. This was done because unlike during the cold war, security can no longer focus on superpower military parity and rely on nations to base their policy and strategy on alignment with a superpower. In today’s multipolar world, the key to security is the maintenance of regional stability through addressing the root causes of instability before crises erupt. This means addressing military and nonmilitary issues, with especial focus on the following “six pillars,” which have been identified as being integral to stability: military parity, national and regional politics, economics, environmental issues, culture, and demographics. These six pillars and their variables are interconnected with issues or events in one pillar creating spill over into the other pillars and, in turn, shaping regional outcomes and (directly or indirectly) impacting global security.

The environment provides an example of how nontraditional security factors can impact regional stability. While the environment is not a root cause of instability, environmental issues can contribute to tensions that can result in conflict. This was demonstrated in a PNNL study sponsored by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to determine whether environmental factors contribute to regional tensions in the Sea of Japan region and whether there are links between regional environmental and proliferation issues. Study results were affirmative on both counts, providing demonstrations of how tensions over regional air and water pollution, violence over fisheries competition, and conflicting territorial claims related to gas and oil reserves all exacerbate regional tensions. More specifically, the report supported the “theory that mitigation of the environmental vulnerabilities identified as having the most significant influence on security issues would help to reduce regional tensions and contribute to the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” It also stated that “regional cooperation in addressing these challenges would… simultaneously accomplish the tasks of improving environmental quality…building cooperation and trust… which would serve to strengthen regional stability.” For workshop organizers, these results gave rise to more questions, highlighting the need for a broader understanding of stability: To what extent do other pillar groups and the interactions of their variables affect regional stability, and how do they interact?

The objective of the Northeast Asia Workshop series was to improve understanding of regional stability so that these questions could be answered. During the first workshop, held in fall of 2000, participants identified the variables and interactions of the six pillar groups, and their impacts on stability. Participants used this information to create a regional baseline and to form a conceptual model of regional dynamics within the time frame of the next three to five years. During the second workshop, effective policies to promote US interests in Northeast Asia were formulated with an appreciation of regional dynamics. In addition, consequences stemming from the actions of important extra-regional actors like the United States and Taiwan were incorporated into the conceptual model. During the third workshop, participants explored a scenario in which the United States announced its decision to deploy Theater Missile Defense in Northeast Asia, examining the potential regional impacts of such a course of action.

A wide array of individuals with expertise on Northeast Asia and each of the six pillar groups participated in the workshops. They included members of academic institutions, think tanks, national laboratories, and various agencies of the US government. Participants examined issues, offered input, and evaluated interactions between the six pillars and impacts on stability from the perspective of their own and other areas of expertise. This strategy was used to ensure a wide variety of experience and perspectives.

The Situational Influence Assessment Model (SIAM) was used to facilitate this process. SIAM uses diagramming techniques and Bayesian mathematics, allowing inclusion and quantification of both “expert opinion” and factual data. Participants also used SIAM to capture discussion by building a database of regional information, recording observations, tracing the complex interactions of pillar groups and their variables; determining their relative impacts on stability; and creating a “logic trail.” While the ability to run the computer model and receive quantified and ranked consequences of specific US policies and actions within the region is useful for risk analysis and and identifying outcomes of varying probabilities, the focus of the workshops was the conceptual framework of the computer model. The process of building the conceptual model and the challenge of looking at the region systematically in order to identify areas of weak understanding, or the tendency to overlook certain issues or connections between between issues, was the primary goal of the workshops.

The in-depth discussions and data gathering by cross-disciplinary groups of professionals throughout the workshops proved useful in identifying regional “pressure points.” The larger regional issues such as the success of the Korean Energy Development Organization, China’s perceptions of the US’ intentions in the region, Japanese demographics, and the link between natural resources and energy demand were highlighted. Trigger events, defined as events with the potential to have widespread ramifications throughout the region with unknown timing or precursors, were identified. Participants also determined that destabilization was most likely to occur, not due to one regional event, but in response to multiple events occurring simultaneously.

The next steps of the effort to build a conceptual model for regional instability will be to further refine the Northeast Asia model, and to then apply the conceptual model to other geographic regions with the aid of SIAM. Areas currently being considered are the Caspian Sea region, Pakistan and India, and Indonesia.

The Sea of Japan Environmental Instability Analysis, conducted by PNNL, is available at: http://pnwcgs.pnl.gov/NEA/Start.htm [Note: this site is no longer available].