Respond Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) towards Security
Dynamic of Asia-Pacific Region
Latifah and Dinda Larasati
Program Studi Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
Keywords: Asia-Pacific Region, FPDA, USA-China, Military Interoperability, Security Dilemma
Abstract: Asia-Pacific is a sub-region of Indo-Pacific which very dynamic area. The geographic location of this
region also includes 3 major areas in Asia including East Asia, central Asia, southeast Asia and Australia
causing it to have strategic geopolitics. Besides, the region is an international cross-border lane and the
busiest cross-trade flow in world. Strategic geopolitical coupled with a wealth of biodiversity and nautical
make this region attracted much attention in the world's great powers. Some big countries want to exploit
the region for the national interests of each. Two of them are United States of America (USA) and China
fighting for influence and often rendering this region as rivalry stage that has resulted in unstable security in
the region. Therefore, FPDA which is a defense pact from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and
Malaysia seeks to strengthen its resistance in response to the condition. Using the literature-based and
explanative method based on books, journals and media, the authors aim to examine the forms of FPDA
responds toward security dynamic of this region. Discussion will be focused on "how FPDA’s respond
towards unstable security dynamics in Asia-Pacific region? ". To examine it, the authors use the concept of
Security Dilemma proposed by Robert Jervis. Authors finding shows that the forms of FPDA action as
responding to the dynamics of regional security include: improvement of military interoperability as
maritime, land and air security through joint exercises.
1 INTRODUCTION
The term of Asia Pacific began to be known since
around the 1980s when economic growth in this
heterogeneous region became a topic of discussion
in global economic- political interaction after the
change in the political status of South Pacific
countries. Since 1960, several islands and European
colonies in this area have undergone a change of
political status from colonized territories to
independent island states (decolonization) (Ministry
of Information, 1985 p.5). Asia Pacific itself refers
to an area comprising East Asia (Japan, China,
Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, and Russia
territory adjacent to the Pacific), Southeast Asia
(Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand,
Philippines, Vietnam , Cambodia, Laos, Brunei
Darussalam, Myanmar), Australia, New Zealand and
Oceania countries and is the sub- Indo-Pacific region
(McDougall, 1997 p. ix). In some contexts, this area
is also considered to include major Asian countries
located around the outer Pacific Rim stretching from
Oceania, to Russia, and descending along the west
coast of America.
In its development, this region is an important
and undeniable area considering the Asia-Pacific
region comprises 50% of the oceans Earth surface.
Moreover, the area of the sea which currently
becomes the concern of many countries is the
Pacific Ocean. In addition, it becomes strategic
because this area becomes the busiest cross-trade
route in the world. Besides, it is also a strategic
potential and abundant natural wealth of marine,
fisheries and mineral materials such as gold, nickel,
and phosphate. Former Japanese Prime Minister
Zenko Suzuki in his speech in Honolulu culminates
in the importance of the Asia Pacific region by
stating that the 21st Century is the Pacific century
(Djelantik, 2015 p.34). However, the majority of
countries in Asia Pacific have not been able to
manage and utilize these natural resources due to
technological and scientific limitations. it makes the
countries in Asia Pacific depend on the countries in
outside the area that has more capabilities.
So, it brings together major world powers such
as the United States, Japan, Britain, Russia and
China that have a vital interest in the Asia-Pacific
region. This area became the meeting arena of the
Latifah, . and Larasati, D.
Respond Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) towards Security Dynamic of Asia-Pacific Region.
DOI: 10.5220/0010276400002309
In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Pacific Region, pages 309-316
ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0
Copyright
c
 2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
309

interests of the large countries and as the center of
the interaction of these countries both bilaterally and
multilaterally (Rahmat, 2017 p.132). The presence
and activity of these countries then generates
security dynamics in the Asia Pacific region.
Moreover, two major countries among them are the
USA and China engaged in rivalry in the Asia
Pacific region. It is proved by increasing China's
economic and military capabilities in the Asia
Pacific region perceived as a threat to US influence
in the region. In his speech to the Australian
Parliament in Canberra, Former President of the
United States, Barack Obama firmly warned China
and insisted that the United States would remain as
major force in the Pacific (BBC News, 2011). These
interaction between the two big countries will
certainly have an impact on stability and security
dynamics in Asia Pacific (Rahmat, 2017 p.132).
This situation then generates a favorable response
from countries in the Asia Pacific region and outside
countries of the region which involved and has
interests in Asia Pacific. One of them is Five Power
Defense Agreement ( FPDA ), a defense pact of
British, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and
Malaysia by trying to strengthen its defense.
In general, the systematic discussion of this
paper includes the concept that will be used to
explain this case is the concept of Security Dilemma
proposed by Robert Jervis. The discussion continued
with the security dynamics in this region that will
focus on the USA and China’s rivalry. Then added
to the discussion on profile and role of FPDA in the
Asia Pacific region. Furthermore, the core
discussion of FPDA response to security dynamics
in the Asia Pacific region. At the end will be at give
a general conclusion to this discussion.
2 METHODS
This paper is a type of qualitative explanative
research in which the author tries to explain the
pattern of causal relations between FPDA and
security dynamic of this region. The unstable
dynamics of this region's security caused by US-
Chinese rivalry are the resulted of FPDA's actions.
Improved military interoperability in the field of
maritime and air security through joint exercises
undertaken by FPDA as responds to this dynamic.
Techniques of data collection is done through
literature review that comes from books, journals,
official website (online) and online news. To
analyze and explain it, the author uses the concept of
security dilemma which is a derivative concept of
realism.
Security dilemma was first proposed by Hertz
(1950, p. 1 74) in the journal World Politics
explained that the state or other actors who are under
anarchy system of world politics must pay attention
to its security, either from attack or domination of
other actors. So, actors normally will seek to
increase its power as response in order to avoid
threat of other countries. Indirectly, this condition is
resulted insecurity feelings and concerns about the
possibility of the worst due to the action of State or
other actors because the absence of fully secure
feeling each actors in the world full of competition
under anarchy system. This results Vicious circle of
security , an illustration of the situation in which the
state or other actors are caught in a concern about its
security issues so that they are always likely to feel
threatened by increasing power of other actors and
always respond with the same behavior. As Hertz
illustrates the insecurity caused by uncertainty over
the purpose of State acts or other actors in the
security context that are the main cause of the
security dilemma of an actor who Booth and
Wheeler call ‘security paradox’ (Booth & Wheeler,
2008) 22).
Security dilemma, it can be simply in known as
phenomenon of action and reaction between several
actors including the State in which anarchy
regarding security system. an action of actor to
improve its security capabilities will result or
subvert to weaken the security of others (Jervis in
Betts, 1994, p. 315). So, it will cause a reaction from
the other actors, including states to take the same
action (increasing the capability of defense and
security) because they feel threatened that action-
reaction pattern prevails among countries / other
actors in the international political stage.
Consequently, every actor will draw up larger
defense budget for enhancement and safeguards.
This means that they are no longer in safe condition
but are approaching the increasingly dangerous
threshold of war for international politic’s life .
resulted as interactions between countries that seek
only security can trigger competition and political
tension (Jervis 1978, p.169).
Jervis explained that the security dilemma is
inseparable from two variables (offensive &
defensive balance) (Glaser 1997, 171).
Theoretically, security dilemma is concept linking to
psychological conditions of decision-makers
representing actors in international politics based on
distrust and ignorance of other capabilities and acts
in security. Actor inabilities to distinguish offensive
ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations
310

or defensive behavior by other actors includes State
(Collins 2000, p. 6-7). The development and
advancement of technology, supported the increase
in the military budget is done by countries are able
to allow a change of attitude at first defensive
strength towards offensive in a relatively quick time
depends on conditions. Thus, process does not
directly cause feelings of threat between actors. A
defensive alert of one party is simultaneously
considered to be evidence of offensive motive by
another party so that it will arm itself as form of
responding to it. All parties strive to outrank each
other so as to cultivate arms and troop races to
improve security capabilities, both in quality and
quantity that create security dilemma (Jones 1993,
p.196-197) .
Some theorists of realism said “More
importantly, the security dilemma is central to the
logic of defensive realism (Glaser 19941995, p. 54;
2003, 406; Kydd 1997b, 116; Schweller 1996, 116).
The security dilemma is arguably the theoretical
linchpin of defensive realism because for defensive
realists it is the security dilemma that makes
possible genuine cooperation between states beyond
a fleeting alliance in the face of a common foe 2010
, p. 33) ".Thus, it can be understood that situation in
which the state is experiencing anxiety or dilemma
related to security changing especially situation of
the military actors or other neighboring countries as
responds to changes in the security situation of
countries by a nearby state called security dilemma
(Collins 2000 , p.13 ). on the other hand, it can lead
to security cooperation between countries that are
surrounding outside alliance.
In this case study, the author uses the security
dilemma as the framework of analysis seen from the
seriousness of Chinese in increasing military budget
since 1990, giving rise to other actors in this matter
FPDA. In 2004, China increased its military budget
by 18%, 2005 by 12.6%, and in 2006 by 14.7%,
until 2015 recorded 119.8 billion US dollars
(Kompas 2007, p.1). its surpasses all budgets from
12 countries in Asia Pacific, which is estimated to
reach a total of 232, 5 billion dollars (Kompas 2012,
p.1). Meanwhile, USA also increases its military
defense capability in the region by applying US
rebalancing strategy through US Army Pacific
Command and increasing military budget. The US
places troops in several countries of the region such
as Japan, South Korea, Alaska, Hawaii, the US
Army Pacific Command controls more than 106,000
troops in Asia-Pacific, along with more than 300
planes and helicopters, and five naval fleets (DMDC
2015, p .1).
Thus has led to insecurity feelings, threats and
weakening of FPDA security that is also in the
region. FPDA responds through increasing military
interoperability as reaction of the US-China rivalry
in the region, as well as explain in security dilemma.
There are perceptions of psychological fear of
decision makers from 5 countries corporated in
FPDA defense pact. the security condition of the
dilemma will trigger cooperation between countries
outside the alliance to face common enemy, this is
done by 5 countries (Australia, UK, New Zealand,
Singapore and Malaysia) who re-intensify their
cooperation to respond to the security dynamics of
this region. Defensive actions by both countries on
the other hand are perceived as offensive attitudes
that will disrupt and weaken FPDA security. More
specifically, related FPDA responds will be
discussed in the next section.
3 RESULTS
Speaking about institutions that play role in security
dynamic of this region, the existence of FPDA as
one of institutions is not very visible when compared
with other organizations in the region such as
ASEAN. Even Bristow mentioned that this regional
security institution as Southeast Asia's unknown
regional security organization because Southeast
Asia is also part of the Asia Pacific region (Bristow,
2005 p.6). FPDA initiated on November 1971 was
originally consultation forum aimed to ensuring all
member countries could consult with each other in
the shortest time possible when external attacks
occurred. However, in its development FPDA is no
longer just regular consultation forum and
transformed into defense pact from its five member
countries. It becomes the only regional security
institution in addition to ASEAN that still survives
and has a role in the region.
FPDA certainly responds to security dynamics in
Asia Pacific shows by the presence by Michael
Fallon, the British defense minister stating "it is
'more necessary than ever' to maintain stability in the
region ", (The Straits Times 2016, p.1). Singapore's
defense minister, Ng Eng Hen also said in The
Straits Times (2017, p.1) "reaffirmed the FPDA as
an integral part of the regional security architecture
& quot; and pledged their & quot ; unwavering
commitment & quot; to the arrangement ". The
statement shows that FPDA is still relevant and
subsequently transformed into institutions concerned
with regional security and stability, especially in the
field of maritime and air security in response to
Respond Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) towards Security Dynamic of Asia-Pacific Region
311

restricted contemporary security dynamic above
(Primary & amp; Chandra 2014, P.43).
In response to it, FPDA transformed the
Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), which
previously focused solely on air defense into a
tridimensional defense comprising land, sea and air
that was done in 2000. It becomes basis of activity to
increase military interoperability in facing future
challenges. At the FPDA meeting Defense Ministry
Meeting (FDMM) resulted in an agreement for
capacity building and inter-military operational
cooperation capabilities pursued through increased
joint military exercises on a regular basis in
tridimensional (Thayer 2007, p.88). The dynamics of
security in region became one of the causes of the
FPDA transformed as a result of the rivalry of USA-
China.
US- China rivalry in this region began in early
21st century marked by China's increasing economic
and military capabilities while at the time the USA
was facing a defensive budget cut due to the
recession in 2008 (Domandy & Kinane, 2014 p.1).
Increased Chinese military capability is evidenced
through China's military budget that continues to
increase in double digits or above 10% annually.
Military fund budget allocated by the Chinese
government in 2000 at 14, 6 billion dollars.
Furthermore, China's military budget continues to
increase as shown in the following table.
Table 1. Increased Chinese Military Budget
Year
China's Military Budget
2000 14.6 billion dollars
2001
17 billion dollars
2002 20 billion dollars
2003 22 billion dollars
2004 24.6 billion dollars
2005 29.9 billion dollars
2006 35 billion dollars
2007 45 billion dollars
2008 57.22 billion dollars
(Sources: China Defenses Budget)
It can be concluded that China's military budget
increase 12% in 2005 and 15% in 2006. Recorded
until 2011- 2015 Chinese military budget in 2011
amounted to 119.8 billion US dollars and increased
by 18, 75% in the military budget in 2015 amounted
to 238.2 billion US dollars. It exceeds all budgets
from 12 countries in Asia Pacific which is estimated
to total 232.4 billion US dollars (Kompas, 2012).
China averages supply of armaments through Russia
because USA and the European Union embargo
China due to the Tiannanmen event, China then
turns to Russia in armament purchases. Russia
recorded approximately 95% of the sale of
armaments to China and became China's largest
supplier. China armament purchases includes; 1) Su-
30 and Su-27 fighter aircraft ; 2) Air missiles (Air to
Air Missiles / AAMs) AA-12 ; 3) Air missile system
(Surface to Air Mis siles / SAM) SA-10, SA-15, SA-
20; 4) 3M-54E (SS- N-27B) ASCMs; 5) Class
submarine - KILO ;
6) Soviet-class II-class destroyer submarine ;
7) Il-76 transport fighter ; 8) IL-78 tanker fighter ;
and 9) The system of merging weapons. This
increasing has resulted other countries in Pacific
region experiencing a security dilemma,
especially the USA, which perceives it as a threat
to US influence in region.
As mentioned earlier, if China's increased
economic and military capabilities coincide with US
facing a defense budget cut that indicates USA’s
economic and military strength in region is likely to
weaken. This has made it possible for other
countries to take over US hegemony in the Asia
Pacific region, one of them is China. Therefore,
under President Obama, USA seeks to restore the
power and influence of the United States in Asia
Pacific. He issued official affirmations and
statements regarding the shift of policy focus to this
region by the end of 2011.However, efforts to
approach and strengthen the security alliance
relations bilaterally with the Asia-Pacific countries
have been done since Obama served as USA
president. The shift in US foreign policy focus
initially in the Middle East shifted to the Asian
region began with the withdrawal of US troops from
Iraq. It indicates a change of strategy in US military
policy to Asia Pacific by "Pivot to Asia". It is an
expression of the strategy focused on Asia Pacific.
(Reis, 2014). It has the main objective of giving
greater influence to developments in the region such
as economic, social, security including the
military.The commitment of USA policy changes to
the Asia Pacific region is evidenced by official
documents Sustaining US Global Leadership:
Priorities for 21st Century
Defense issued by the USA Department of
Defense. It mentions the establishment plan of Joint
Force in Asia Pacific which deemed necessary to
increase the capability of USA military forces and
alliances to carry out major military missions. one of
them is to prevent the formation of anti-Access /
Area Denial (A2 / AD) that is the ability of China to
ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations
312

Top 15 Defence Budgets 2014* US$bn
2. China
_
_
... ..
■ Includes US Foreign Mtitary
Assistance
avoid attacks of other countries. USA also places its
Asia Pacific armed forces under United State Pacific
Command (USPACOM) based in Hawai. its
working areas include Alaska, the Arctic, Indian
Ocean and Southeast Asia and also oversees several
military bases located in the Asia Pacific region such
as Japan, South Korea and Guam (Bower, et al, 2016
p.32). USPACOM component comprising army,
navy, air force, marines, and special forces controls
over 106,000 troops in Asia Pacific, 300 aircraft and
helicopters, as well as five naval fleets (Sari & Yani,
2017 p.7). Following President Obama's visiting in
2011, USA renewed its military base around
Australia in 2012 by adding 200 marine personnel
and an additional 2,500 troop plan to be
concentrated around Cocos island in 2017 (Minister
for Defense, 2011). In addition, USA also held Anti-
Submarine Warfare (ASW) training included a
number of combat caps and missiles such as (1)
aircraft carrier USS George Washington / CVN 73;
(2) carrier air wing / CVW 5; (3) guided-missile
cruiser USS Antietam / CG 54; (4) guided missile
destroyer lassen / DDG 82; and (5) RAN guided
missile frigate HMAS Sydney (FFG 03 ) (Kelly,
2013).
In addition to improving their military
capabilities, the US-China rivalry in Asia Pacific can
also be seen from the allocation of state income to
military budget. Based on IISS data by 2014, among
countries in the Asia- Pacific region China is the
largest military budget. However, if you see the
presence of US in the region, then China was ranked
second. In 2013 the US spent its defense fund of
1.747 billion US dollars while China with total
military spending of 188 billion US dollars (SIPRI,
2014) as in the following graphic.
Graphic 1. The 2014 Military Expenditure Budget
(Sources: IISS, Military Balance, 2014)
4 DISCUSSION
Based on security dilemma (Hertz) explains that
actor is under should pay attention to its security
issues under anarchy system of political system,
either from attacks or other dominance. So each will
increase its military strength due to insecurity
feelings and worries about the worst possiblities due
to actions of each actor that produces Vicious circle
of security. It’s also called the security paradox by
Booth and Wheeler, in this paper, the actions
undertaken by the US-China through increased
military capability and make the Asia Pacific region
a rivalry stage. Referring to table 1 (result) China
continues to increase military budget in double digits
or above 10% annually since 2000 which amounted
to 14.6 billion (Domandy & Kinane, 2014 p.1 and
Kompas 2012 ). China's attitude was responded by
the USA with pivot to asia and official documents
Suistaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st
Century Defense issued by the US Department of
Defense, as described previously (Reis SIPRI 2014
& 2014). Increased US military budget to address
China as shown in graphic 2.
US-China rivalry leads to instability of security
dynamics in Asia Pacific, then it’s effected to
FPDA. Jervis explains the security dilemma is
inseparable from the two variables that balance
offensive & defensive defense. furthermore, security
dilemma can not be separated from psychological
condition of policy makers based on distrust and
ignorance of the capabilities and actions of other
actors in the security and inability to distinguish
defensive or offensive accomplishments. Actor
defensive behavior is perceived as offensive by other
actors. In this case, China defensive then followed
by USA in fact tis perceived as offensive actions by
FPDA (Collins, 2000, p. 6-7. It is related due to
psychological conditions FPDA’s officials in
inability to ensure the action taken by the USA-
Chinese rivalry that created unstable security
dynamic. It’s then responded with an offensive and
defensive attitude by increasing FPDA’s military
capability.
Besides explaining the reasons why the actors
behave thus, security dilemma explain ‘how’
response to other actors in maintaining it’s security,
called action-reaction pattern. Actors actions
improve their security capabilities resulting a
perception to weaken the security of other actors.
Reaction in the same form of action that increases
the capability of defense and security. Consequently,
each actor or country will increase defense
expenditure spending and other measures to
:;Ni!
200
100
-0
Best Other United
of the topIS States
world countries
Respond Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) towards Security Dynamic of Asia-Pacific Region
313

strengthen its military interoperability (Jervis in
Betts 1994, p.315 and Jervis 1978, p.169), thus
referring to this, the FPDA reacts to improve
operational of military capability and the
interconnection between the defense ministers of
member countries as well as collectively through
joint exercises and adding its military forces. Along
with Shangri-La dialogue, officials FPDA together
defense ministers of Singapore confirms that FPDA
also will begin to maximize coordination patrols,
exchange of information and communication
preferably between operating centers, including
naval and coastal guards among member countries.
FPDA reaction includes join exercise namely Ex.
BERSAMA LIMA in an effort to improve military
capability (MINDEF Singapore 2004, P.2). this
operation carried out in operational multi-threat
scenarios and tactics including at least 31 ships, 60
aircraft, two submarines and 3,500 support
personnel (team of divers, air defense support teams
and landline communications) (Thayer 2007, p.89).
Ex. BERSAMA LIMA, include maritime
Interdiction operation drill, in a variety of exercises
emphasizing coordinated patrols, intelligence
sharing, improved communication among member
states. this incorporates a number of new features
such as Command facilities and centralized control
is equipped with digital infrared camera and network
as a support in the exercise based in the Singapore
Air Force Base, Paya Lebar (Thayer 2007, p.90). In
November 2011, it also intensified a joint military
exercise involving 4,000 military personnel, 67
fighter planes, 18 warships, 2 submarines, and
various military elements to deal with threats
perceived by FPDA due to USA-Chinese rivalry
defensive actions. In addition to the 40th anniversary
of FPDA as well as producing Stocktake Documents
by FDMM contains targets to increase joint
capability and interoperability and carry out routine
military exercises as preventive and self-defense
measures (Primary & Chandra 2014, p.44-45).
FPDA also held Ex. SUMAN WARRIOR,
acronym of 5 FPDA countries has been done since
2006 but massively increased in 2015 and above. It
is aimed at improving interoperability and providing
platform to facilitate professional military exchange,
improving interaction and building military 5
countries relationships and power synergizing. The
exercise focuses on offensive and defensive
formation operations, which will be very useful in
enhancing the skills of commanders, as well as told
by Brigadier
General Sofi who led this exercise (The
Diplomat 2016, p.1).
In addition to the above two exercises, FPDA
also held Ex. BERSAMA PADU, the largest and
most complex exercise in form of operational
planning involving strength training, tactical
exercises, and maritime security series that test
operational capacity, cooperation, interoperability
and joint operations. The exercises include simulated
threats of maritime security, mine deployment and
recovery, maritime surveillance also supported by
ground-based components of air defense radar, anti-
aircraft weapons and missile batteries. In 2007, the
exercise involved 21 ships, 85 aircraft, 1 submarine
and 3,500 personnel and supported with the
previously mentioned ground forces (Thayer 2007,
p.91). FPDA also conducts a water / land integration
working group for Enhancing interoperability and
cooperation among FPDA countries (The Strait
Times 2017, p.1). In addition to various joint
exercises, FPDA 5 member states individually also
enhances its military interoperability capability.
Several joint exercises to improve the FPDA
military interoperability above are the answers to
how the responds provided by the actor as a result of
the actions of other threatening actors as described
in security dilemma.
However, the authors in this paper have new
findings that are less able to be explained by this
concept. Based on the security dilemma, explain
"why" the reason the actor should pay attention to it
security problem in the anarchy political system
where the Action of a state / actor to improve his
security capability will result in or undermine the
security of other countries (Hertz 1950, p.174 and
Jervis in Betts 1994, p.31). So that, this threatens the
psychological condition of the other actors to be
worried and reacts to the same actions through the
enhancement of their defense and security
capabilities (Jervis 1978, p.169). So the application
of concept in this paper is action of US-China rivalry
lead to unstable security dynamics called vicious
circle security so that the FPDA respond as
described above. However, as mentioned FPDA not
only emphasized in terms of collectivity but
individually each member country to improve
military interoperability facing this condition. Each
country FPDA individuals actively involved in
responding to conditions of security such as,
Australia contributed submarines and 300 personnel
of defense, RAN frigate HMAS Ballarat and the
Collins Class submarine HMAS Farncomb, Royal
Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion maritime patrol
aircraft and KA350 King Air tactical mobility
aircraft are also involved in Exercise with Shield 17
( Defense Connect 2017, p.1). In addition, Australia
ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations
314

developed air warfare destroyers and the P-8A
maritime patrol aircraft was again developed and
complemented its military strength with the F- 35
Joint Strike Fighters. Meanwhile, Malaysia began to
develop frigate for completeness weaponry navy and
involved very active as a leader in joint exercises
like Ex. SUMAN WARRIOR together with
Singapore that also commissioned the new Littoral
Mission Vessels for its military completeness as a
defensive effort with various forms of training
centered around the territory of Malaysia and
Singapore . As for Britain, the F-35 aircraft carrier is
expected to be able to operate maximally in 2021. In
contrast, New Zealand appears to be less actively
participating in the reaction to these security
dynamics seen in the new passive attitude of
planning to order new patrol aircraft (The Straits
Times 2017, p.1 ).
The passive attitude of the new Zealand above
towards conditions can not be separated from the
psychological condition of policy makers who are
less threatened or weakened by the increase of
military capability of USA-China. The attitude of
participation in joint exercises held several more
visits FPDA is more likely aimed as steps to
maintain good relations between countries member,
especially the commitment to Malaysia and
Singapore. This can be seen clearly set out in the
Defense
White Paper, New Zealand ( latest ), published in
2010. It noted that "New Zealand security
relationship with Singapore and Malaysia will be
taking place well and the longest established under
FPDA. During the last decade Singapore and
Malaysia have become important partners in
peacekeeping and related missions to security with
new zealand. Singapore's contribution of 70
powerful infantry groups to the New Zealand
battalion
5 CONCLUSIONS
The increased of US and Chinese military
capabilities while making pacific Asia a rivalry stage
have influenced security dynamic of this region.
FPDA as the only security institution in this area
respond to it as a threat, due to thee psychological
condition of policymakers who feel threatened by
the increase and domination as the effect of the
rivalry of both countries. Furthermore, the absence
of ability to distinguish defensive and offensive US-
China’s behavior that also contribute by massive
technological developments as explained in the
concept of a security dilemma under anarchy
political in East Timor reflects the long - term
relationship between Singapore-Zealand through the
FPDA, and marks the growing maturity of
relationships characterized by the ability to work
together. So the existence of new Zealand in those
joint exercise is more likely to this reason then
feeling of insecurity caused by USA-China Rivalry
(Sinclair 2013, P. 4).system. The above conditions
explain 'why' as reason of the FPDA attitude in this
paper. In addition, based on the security dilemma
also explains 'how' as form of respond given
(reaction) due to the perception of the threat as
described as the reason above, FPDA shows the
form of reaction through increased military
interoperability in quality and quantity through a
series of joint exercises collectively include: Ex .
BERSAMA LIMA, Ex. SUMAN WARRIOR, Ex.
BERSAMA PADU and individual enhancement of
each member countries described above.
REFERENCES
Book
Booth ,Ken dan J Wheeler, Nicholas, 2008, The Security
dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in Word
Politics. Palgrave, New York
Bower, Ernest, 2016, Asia Pasific Rebalance 2025
capabilities, presence, and partnership. Washington
DC: Center For strategic and International Studies
Djelantik,Sukarwasini (ed.), 2015, Asia Pasifik: Konflik,
Kerjasama, dan Relasi Antar Kawasan, Yayasan
Pustaka Obor Indonesia, Jakarta
Jervis, Robert "Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,"
World Politics 30 (January 1978), 169. For earlier
discussions of the security dilemma, see John H. Herz,
"Idealist Internationalism and the Security Dilemma,"
World Politics 2 (January 1950), which identifies the
basic concept, but does not develop it extensively; and
Herbert Butterfield, History and Human Relations
London: Collins, 1951
Jervis, Robert, 1994 “Cooperation Under the Security
Dilemma” dalam Richard K. Betts, Conflict After the
Cold Arguments on Cause of War and Peace. Mac
Millan Publishing Company, New York. McDougall,
Derek, 1997, The International Politics of The new
Asia Pasific, Lynne Rienner Publisher
Richardson, Lewis, 1993, “Arms and Insecurity” dalam
Walter S. Jones, Logika Hubungan Internasional
Kekuasaan, Ekonomi-Politik Internasional, dan
Tatanan Dunia, Jilid 2, Gramedia, Jakarta.
Journal
Bristow, D 2005. ‘The Five Power Defence
Arrangements: Southeast Asia"s Unknown Regional
Security Organization.’ Contemporary Southeast Asia,
Vol. 27, No. 1
Respond Five Power Defense Agreement (FPDA) towards Security Dynamic of Asia-Pacific Region
315

Charles L. Glaser, 1997, ‘The Security Dilemma Revisited
World Politics,’ Fiftieth Anniversary Special Issue
Vol. 50, No. 1
Pratama C.P & Candra, DS 2014, ‘Perkembangan Five
Power Defence Arrangements Dalam Menanggapi
Dinamika Keamanan Asia Tenggara Pasca Perang
Dingin’, GLOBAL Vol. 16 No. 1 Mei 2014.
Rahmat, A.N 2017, ‘Dinamika Keamanan Asia Pasifik
Dalam Persaingan Kekuatan Maritime China Dan
Amerika Serikat, Jurnal Dauliyah Vol. 2 No.2 Juli
2017
Sari,S & Yani, YM2017, ‘Revitalisasi Hubungan Amerika
Serikat Di Asia Pasifik’, Dinamika Global Volume 02,
No.02, Desember 2017
Thayer, CA 2007. ‘The Five Power Defence
Arrangements: The Quiet Achiever.’ Security
Challenges, Vol. 3, No. 1
Online
Adrian Lim, 2017, The Straits Times, Five Power Defence
Arrangements remain relevant to deal with today's
security threats , 2 June 2017
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/five-power-
defence- arrangements-remain-relevant-to-deal-with-
todavs-securitv-threats
Amelia McMahon, 2017, Defence Connect, Regional co-
operation at the forefront of military exercise, 28 April
2017 https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-
enablers/616-regional-cooperation- at-the-forefront-of-
military-exercise
BBC News Indonesia, Obama: Asia Pasifik Masa Depan
Dunia, 17 November 2011
http://www.bbc.com/indonesia/dunia/2011/11/111117
obamapacific
Global Security.org, 2012, China’s Defense Budget 13
Juni 2012
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/bu
dget.htm.
Jermyn Chow, 2016, The Straits Times, Five Power
Defence Arrangements 'more necessary than ever' for
regional stability: UK defence chief Fallon, 4 June
2016 https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se- asia/five-
power-defence-arrangements-more-necessary-than-
ever-for-regional-stability-uk
MINDEF Singapore News Release, 2004, 2nd FPDA
Defence Ministers’ Informal Meeting, 7 June 2004
http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/MI
NDEF 20040607001.pdf
Minister for Defence. 2011. The Asia-Pacific Century and
The Australias-Unted States Allaince.
(http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2011/07/27/minister-
for-defence-the-asia-pacific-century-and-
the-australia-united-states-alliance/
Paul Kelly, 2013, America’s Navy, Australian Navies
Conduct ASW Exercises 7 July 2013
http://www.public.navv.mil/surfor/dd288/Pa2es/USAustral
ianNaviesConductASWExercisesdurin2TSl
3.aspx#.WzYauVVKiIU
Prashant Prameswaran , 2016, Malaysia Hosts FPDA
Exercise Suman Warrior 2016, 4 October 2016
https://thediplomat.com/2016/10/malaysia-hosts-fpda-
exercise-suman-warrior-2016/
Prashant Prameswaran, 2017, The Diplomat, Five Power
Defense Arrangements in the Spotlight with Military
Exercise, 12 October 2017
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/five-power-defense-
arrangements-in-the-spotlight-with-military-exercise/
Reis, J.Arthur, 2014, Asia Times, China’s Dual Response
to the US ‘Pivot , 24 Januari 2014.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
SIPRI. 2014. ‘Sipri’. Trends in World Military
Expenditure 2013. (Daring),
(http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1404.pdf.
Tim Huxley, 2017, The Straits Times, Developing the
Five Power Defence Arrangement, 1 June 2017
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/developing-the-
five-power-defence-arrangements
Report
Departemen Penerangan RI, 1985, Negara-negara
Kawasan Pasific Kepulauan.
Direktorat Penerangan Luar Negeri Departemen
Penerangan RI, Jakarta
Paul Sinclair, 2013, Regional Security Fellow Centre for
Strategic Studies Victoria University of Wellington Or
CSS STRATEGIC BACKGROUND PAPER
Xenia Dormandy with Rory Kinane, 2014,. Asia Pasific
Secuirty, the Changing role for US, Chatam House
Report, The royal Institue of International Affairs
ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations
316