Preventive diplomacy in Asia-Pasific

By Hasjim Djalal

The following article is based on a paper presented to 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 the article are personal. This is the first of two articles.

JAKARTA (JP): The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) has endorsed a concept paper on how to tackle the political, security and territorial issues in the Asia-Pacific region through a three- stage "gradual evolutionary approach".

The three stages of the approach are "promotion of Confidence- Building Measures", "development of Preventive Diplomacy" and "development of Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms".

There was no timeframe given to achieving each stage. Neither was there a clear indication whether the three stages were to be worked out in sequence or undertaken gradually and evolutionarily but simultaneously.

However, the three stages could, in theory, be undertaken simultaneously although gradually and evolutionarily.

In its second and fourth meetings, the ARF gave some guidelines that "where subject matters at the Confidence-Building Measures and Preventive Diplomacy stages overlap, such matters can proceed in tandem with the Confidence-Building Measures stage". There was, however, no relationship mentioned between the three stages.

In fact, a similar relationship could be made between the three stages, all of which could be identified not as subsequent stages but merely as issues of somewhat different character but having close links one to another.

The concept paper enumerated the first and second stages in terms of short, medium and long-term goals, but there was no mention or enumeration of the third stage, namely whether it should also be looked upon in terms of short, medium and long- term goals.

Some of the topics referred to in short and medium-term Confidence-Building Measures and Preventive Diplomacy were also dealt with in the South China Sea Workshops (SCSW) on Managing Potential Conflicts, where some progress has been made, albeit between and among South China Sea participants. It should be noted that not all participants of the SCSW are members of the ARF, such as Taiwan, and not all members of the ARF are participants in the SCSW, such as the United States, Japan, Australia.

The ARF's short-term CBMs included, among other things, the goal to formulate a set of basic principles to ensure a common understanding and approach to interstate relations in the region.

Indeed, as early as 1991, the second SCSW in Bandung, West Java, agreed that South China Sea issues would be settled peacefully, meaning that force or threat of force should not be used, that parties to the disputes should exercise restraint and that parties should develop cooperative programs and projects regardless of the territorial disputes. These basic principles were in fact precursors to the principles adopted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) at its Manila Declaration on the South China Sea in 1992.

The short-term CBMs also included the adaptation of comprehensive security. Indeed, since its early inception in 1990, the SCSW had agreed to manage potential conflicts in the South China Sea through promotion of dialogs, Confidence-Building Measures and designing cooperative programs and projects, on which all participants could agree and could participate in their implementation. This was definitely looked upon as the embodiment of a comprehensive approach to security.

Like the need of the ARF to develop transparencies which include dialogue on security perception, the SCSW had since the very beginning discussed the territorial, jurisdictional, political and security issues in the South China Sea.

Several workshops were devoted to these purposes. But such discussions have now stalled because of the reluctance of some participants to deal with the matter at this stage, arguing that they were not mandated to deal with these issues because they were so sensitive. But the participants had had better understanding of the positions of each claimant in the South China Sea.

With regard to the ARF's need to be transparent about defense publications, participation in the United Nations (UN) conventional arms register, enhanced contacts including high level visits and recreational activities, exchanges between military academies, staff colleges and training, observers and military exercises, and annual seminars for defense officials and military officers in selected international security issues most, if not all, of those Confidence-Building Measures have been discussed at one time or another at the SCSW.

Indeed, the Workshop in Bukittinggi, West Sumatra, in 1994 thoroughly discussed the need not to expand the existing military presence in the multilaterally contested South China Sea islands, reefs and rocks.

The Workshop in Balikpapan, East Kalimantan, in 1995 also discussed thoroughly the need for transparency by developing contacts between local military and administrative officials, either by mutual visits or joint recreational activities. Again, the discussion on these issues have slowed down since some participants considered that the workshops was not mandated to discuss these matters.

It should be noted, however, that most of the occupied South China Sea islands, reefs and rocks in the Spratly group are "closed" areas, not open to public visitors. The only exception is those under Malaysian occupation. Despite these difficulties, however, the SCSW still has a consensus to discuss the Confidence-Building Measures. In fact, some participants argue that the continuation of the workshops is already a Confidence- Building Measures in itself.

On Preventive Diplomacy, the ARF concept paper in the short run stated the need: to develop a set of guidelines for the peaceful settlement of disputes, taking into account the UN Charter and ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation; promote the recognition and acceptance of the purposes and principles of the treaty; and seek the endorsement of the ASEAN declaration on the South China Sea.

As I indicated above, the SCSW had already issued a statement to this effect at its second workshop in Bandung in 1991.

However, because all claimants in the multiple-claimed area in the South China Sea, except Taiwan, have adopted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, they should agree to the dispute settlement mechanism provided by UNCLOS and the UN Charter, including the use of a third-party mechanism, such as good offices, mediation, arbitration or even adjudication, by using the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg and the International Court of Justice in the Hague.

It should be noted that there is now a growing willingness in the Asia-Pacific region to go to the International Court of Justice, as Indonesia and Malaysia did to resolve their dispute over the Sipadan and Ligitan Islands, and by Malaysia and Singapore in their dispute over a tiny rock in the strait of Singapore (Horsbourgh lighthouse).

The claimants to the Spratly islands, reefs and rocks should be willing to go to the international courts or use other third- party dispute settlement mechanisms for their territorial, maritime and other disputes if they cannot find a solution among themselves within a reasonable period, say within five years.

With regard to the ARF concept on the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, seminars/workshops on peacekeeping issues, and exchange of information and experience relating to the UN peacekeeping operations, the SCSW had never thoroughly discussed the matter.

However, on maritime security cooperation, the SCSW has already discussed a number of issues. They have established a Group of Experts Meetings (GEM) on the matters and a number of Technical Working Groups (TWGs), such as those listed below. * A TWG on Marine Scientific Research (MSR), which has met five times, in Manila, Singapore, Jakarta, Hanoi and Cebu. A GEM on biodiversity also met in Cebu, and a workshop on training program on biodiversity has taken place in Singapore.

The TWG on MSR formulated three cooperative projects which are ready for implementation -- a study on biodiversity in the South China Sea, a study on sea level and tide monitoring in the South China Sea within the context of climatic change, and preparing a database for exchange of information and networking among scientists. * A TWG on Marine Environmental Protection (MEP) has met in Hangzhou and Haikou and a GEM on MEP has also been convened in Phnom Penh.

This TWG agreed on a project on training programs for ecosystem monitoring in the South China Sea. It has also discussed various other cooperative efforts on marine environmental protection in the South China Sea, such as the exchange of documentation and environmental legislation among the South China Sea governments and authorities. * A TWG on Safety of Navigation, Shipping and Communication (SNSC) has met in Jakarta and Bandar Sri Begawan, and its GEM on hydrographic data and information exchange has met in Kuching, Malaysia, and a GEM on training of mariners has also met in Singapore.

The TWG on SNSC agreed to concentrate on four programs of activities: hydrographic data and mapping to be coordinated by Taiwan, marine environmental protection to be coordinated by China, illegal activities at sea and search and rescue to be coordinated by Malaysia; and promotion of training of mariners to be coordinated by Singapore. * A TWG on Resources Assessment and ways of development has met in Jakarta and decided to concentrate its activities on three specific subjects: studying the potential of hydrocarbon resources to be coordinated by Indonesia, studies on hard minerals to be coordinated by Vietnam, and studies on living resources to be coordinated by Thailand.

In fact, Thailand has prepared a proposal on stock assessment in the South China Sea which is now under consideration in the workshop process. There was also a general agreement that a Joint Development or joint cooperation concept could be undertaken in disputed areas.

There are already two joint development agreements in the South China Sea, namely between Malaysia and Vietnam and between Malaysia and Thailand. Although the Joint Development concept means different things to different countries, there is a willingness to study this concept further.

A special Study Group on Joint Development in the South China Sea was convened in Vientiane on June 16/June 17, 1998, to look into various models of Joint Development around the world with a view to seeing what could be adopted in the South China Sea area.

With regard to the medium and long term goals of the ARF, there have also been many similar activities between the SCSW and the ARF initiatives.

On Confidence-Building Measures, for instance, programs on maritime information databases, a cooperative approach to sea lines of communication, the establishment of zones of cooperation in areas such as the South China Sea, have already been the subject of many meetings in the SCSW. On Preventive Diplomacy, exploring ways and devices and means to prevent conflicts is one of the major concerns of the SCSW through promoting dialog, promoting Confidence-Building Measures and devising specific projects for cooperation.

Studies on sea level and climate monitoring systems, protection of the marine environment and joint MSRs in the South China Sea have already reached an advanced stage in the SCSW, which the ARF mechanism could and should support.

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.

Window: The claimants to the Spratly islands, reefs and rocks should be willing to go to the international courts or use other third- party dispute settlement mechanisms for their territorial, maritime and other disputes if they cannot find a solution among themselves within a reasonable period, say within five years.