Preventive diplomacy in Asia-Pasific
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.
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.