Jeju Peace Institute

Existing security strategies and institutions in Northeast Asia are becoming increasingly ineffective. Multilateral security cooperation is a promising alternative to existing security arrangements, as it has the potential to complement and even replace them. It is, however, difficult to launch multilateral security cooperation in Northeast Asia right away. If the experience of Europe and Southeast Asia is any guide, active multilateral security dialogues precede multilateral security cooperation. In this study, Track 1 security dialogues and Track 2 dialogues in the Asia-Pacific have been compared using the Dialogue and Research Monitor dataset. Analysis showed that the role and contributions of Track 2 dialogues may be lesser than some of their proponents have argued. Nevertheless, Track 2 dialogues are more than just ‘talk shops’ unlike their critics have argued. Track 2 dialogues addressed sensitive issues before Track 2 dialogues did, functioned as an alternative diplomatic route when official diplomacy was deadlocked, and helped participants to socialize in global norms, for instance. Also important, Track 2 dialogues guided Track 1 dialogues in the area of human security. If we can synergy between Track 1 dialogues and Track 2 dialogues, we can improve the quality of policies as well as promote international cooperation. It is therefore important to promote Track 2 dialogues as well as Track 1 dialogues. Contents Ⅰ. Introduction Ⅱ. Overview of Asia-Pacific Track 2 Multilateral Security Dialogue Ⅲ. Evaluation of Asia-Pacific Track 2 Dialogue Ⅳ. Track 2 Multilateral Security Dialogue for Northeast Asia