Preventive diplomacy in Aisa-Pacific

Preventive diplomacy in Aisa-Pacific

By Hasjim Djalal

This is the second of two articles based on a paper presented
at the International Symposium on Preventive Diplomacy in the
Asia-Pacific region, jointly organized in Beijing from July 20 to
July 21, 1998, by the Japan Forum on International Relations and
the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. The
views expressed in this article are personal.

JAKARTA (JP): Implementing programs and projects has become a
major problem at both the South China Sea Workshops (SCSW) and
the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), even though they have been agreed
upon.

For some years, there was difficulty in the SCSW in the
implementation of programs and projects not only due to financial
reasons but also due to political and legal considerations.

Some participants felt that implementation of specific
projects by governments or authorities may involve territorial
disputes, despite the fact that the SCSW had long agreed that the
implementation should not prejudice any territorial or
jurisdictional claims.

Fortunately, the eighth meeting of the SCSW in Puncak, West
Java, in December 1997 agreed to concentrate and to begin the
process of implementation. The participants also agreed to ask
their respective authorities to specify and quantify their
contribution to the implementation of the projects, either in
terms of expertise, facilities or finance.

In addition, already since its fourth workshop in Surabaya,
East Java, in August 1993, the SCSW had agreed that "non-South
China Sea states and other regional or global organizations would
be invited, if necessary, to be involved and to participate in
the realization of specific projects of cooperation".

The ARF would be able to cooperate and help the SCSW in this
process of implementation because by so-doing, the ARF would be
helping itself.

It is, therefore, clear that most, if not all, of the process
of Confidence Building Measures and Preventive Diplomacy, as
envisaged by the ARF, have already been carried out or are being
discussed in SCSW.

It should be clear that some cooperation and coordination
would have to be undertaken between the SCSW as an informal
mechanism and the ARF as a formal mechanism. Indonesia's Minister
of Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas already recognized this issue when
he opened the eighth workshop in Puncak in December 1997.

In fact, ARF had also recognized this when it repeatedly
"noted the positive contribution made by the workshop on Managing
Potential Conflict in the South China Sea", and expressed the
need to be apprised of the activities of the SCSW through the
current chairman of the Tract One activities, who will be the
main link between Tract One and Tract Two activities. It is time
now that the ARF should also involve the work of the SCSW in its
activities and, if possible, to mutually support each other and
avoid duplication of activities.

The traditional ARF wisdom now is that the development of
Conflict Resolution Mechanism is not something for the immediate
future, although it is the "eventual goals" of the ARF. The ARF
is stuck with the principles of "graduality", "evolutionary" and
at "a phase comfortable to all participants".

This is a cautious attitude and may be a wise one up to this
point. However, history is full of examples that being too wise
and too cautious may, in the end, be too late to avert any
potential conflict from worsening and erupting into unmanageable
proportion.

While the mood in the Asia-Pacific region is good and the
atmosphere for cooperation is conducive, and while time is
"plenty", the ARF should begin to work more seriously into the
development of Conflict Resolution Mechanism, namely to find out
and devise a mechanism that would be suitable to the Asia-Pacific
region for now and for the future.

The future situation in the Asia-Pacific region in some
accounts is still very fluid. Only in July, 1997, the fourth ARF
in Subang Jaya, Malaysia, applauded that "the spread of
prosperity (in the Asia-Pacific region) has laid a solid
foundation for political stability in the region ".

Now, just one year later, many countries in the region are in
financial and economic turmoil, while their political and
security implications to the Asia-Pacific region as a whole have
not yet been fully comprehended. It is still to be observed
whether the financial and economic crisis now in the West Pacific
would strengthen or weaken the Asia-Pacific fabric of cooperation
and cohesion.

After more than eight years attempting to informally manage
potential conflicts in the South China Sea through the promotion
of cooperation within the context of promoting Confidence
Building Measures and Preventive Diplomacy as generally
understood, a few lessons can be drawn as follows.

* Bigger countries in the region should be mindful of the views
of their neighbors, especially the smaller ones. The bigger
countries should be careful so that they are not perceived to be
dominating or bullying their smaller neighbors.

* Attempts should be made to broaden the participants in
cooperative programs and deepen the areas of cooperation, while
at the same time, promote growth of the regional states. The more
the cooperative effort develop economic contents for mutual
benefits, the more likely the effort to be more successful. The
approach should be inclusive rather than exclusive.

* There should be more emphasis on regional and common interests.
The countries of the region should learn how to pursue their
national interests within their regional harmony. In fact, they
should perceive the pursuit of regional interests as parts of
their national interests.

* There should be a gradual progression of the concept of
national resilience to the promotion of the concept of regional
resilience and regional cohesion. The ASEAN's positive
experiences in this regard have been very instructive.

* The countries in the region should be less sensitive to the
concept of national sovereignty, since more and more issues which
in the past might arguably be of a national character, now they
are becoming more and more regional and having more regional
implications -- such as environmental issues, some domestic
political stability issues and even some monetary and financial
issues, as shown recently in Southeast Asia.

* Within the true sense of oriental good neighbor, the countries
in the region should be able to be helpful to the neighbors in
need if required.

* The countries in the region should avoid an arms race among
themselves. In fact, they should be able to coordinate their
defense need, thus bolstering regional harmony and transparency.

* Major external powers, wherever possible and practicable,
should support the development of a constructive atmosphere in
the region for peace, stability and progress.

* Countries in the region should exercise preventive diplomacy by
preventing disputes from becoming open-armed conflicts or by
preventing a conflict from spreading or aggravating.

* Countries in the region should develop cooperative efforts so
that potential conflicts could be managed by converting them to
actual cooperation, since any potential conflict also contains in
itself elements for cooperation.

* Countries in the region should develop various fora for dialog,
either bilateral or multilateral, formal or informal. The various
fora for dialog should hopefully, in the end, be able to produce
a set of agreed codes of conduct for the region.

* Countries should pursue various avenues of peaceful settlement
of disputes through negotiation, either bilateral if the disputes
are bilateral, or multilateral if the disputes are multilateral.

* Third-party mechanism for disputes settlement should also be
explored and utilized, such as good offices, mediation,
arbitration and even, if necessary, adjudication through the
international court of justice or law of the sea tribunal. The
ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation had already formulated
certain mechanism for dispute settlement among ASEAN countries. A
new mechanism for the Asia-Pacific region as a whole should be
considered, either by drawing from the treaty or from other
models.

* The countries in the region should attempt to settle their
land, maritime and jurisdictional boundaries as soon as possible
and respect the agreed boundaries. They should not settle
boundary problems through unilateral enactment of national
legislation because enacting legislation tends to harden a
position rather than enabling the parties to seek a solution.

* In some disputed areas, the application of he Joint Development
concept might be useful as long as the zone of the dispute is or
can be identified.

* While encouraging Tract One activities in the Asia-Pacific
region to be more responsive and imaginative to deal with the
potential conflict, more discussion by the Tract Two, including
by academics and think tanks could also be helpful.

* The interests of nonregional countries should be taken into
account, and their potential contribution to avoid conflict or
potential conflict in the region should not be discarded
altogether.

Dr. Hasjim Djalal is an Ambassador at Large for the Law of the
Sea and Maritime affairs and also the initiator of the South
China Sea Workshop.