The 4th UN-ASEAN Conference
“Conflict Prevention, Conflict Resolution and
ASEAN Security Community and the UN”
Organised by
Department
of Foreign Affairs,
Centre
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
United
Nations – Department of Political Affairs
United
Nations Development Programme
ASEAN
Secretariat
Dr Hadi Soesastro – Executive Director, CSIS opened the conference and emphasised how the theme of this particular conference on ASEAN Security Community (ASC) is indeed very timely. In a few months, ASEAN will come up with a set of action plan to realise this ASC. From the beginning, there has been an understanding that by organising ourselves in the region, the global community will be strengthened. Thus it is appropriate to discuss ASC and how it links with UN Agenda and Activities.
Ms Julia Taft from UNDP New York stressed the significance of the conference. She also looked forward to the discussion in the hope of having a more detailed and comprehensive inputs for practical implementations. Considering the current two types of threats, namely global and regional threats, the UN believes that only by seeing the problems through regional perspective can effective and long term solutions be obtained. Working closely with ASEAN will make this happen. The UN hopes that the 1st decade of the 21st century will see the deepening of UN-ASEAN cooperation in conflict prevention and peace building.
It is the hope of the Minister that the UN Secretariat will share the expertise and insights that will help ASEAN build the ASC. ASEAN can benefit greatly from the UN’s vast experience in conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peace-building. Moreover, the UN Secretariat can enlighten ASEAN on the intricacies o f working on the basis of article 33 and Chapter VIII of the UN Charter regarding the role of regional organisations in the pacific settlement of disputes. The results of this cooperation could be a more productively integrated agenda for peace.
Session 1 titled ‘ASEAN Security Community’ was moderated by Mr M. C. Abad, Jr, Assistant Director, ASEAN Secretariat. Mr Abad reflected upon the working definition of Security Community, which is “a group which has become integrated, where integration is defined as the attainment of a sense of community, accompanied by formal or informal institutions or practices, sufficiently strong and widespread to assure peaceful change with reasonable certainty over a long period of time.”
Mutual trust is the most important condition. National interests and binding contract are important but the most important source of such pacific disposition is the shared identity and sense of community. After 37 years, he questioned, are we witnessing a nascent if not ascendant ASC along the above definition? Or does the Southeast Asian regional order at present simply manifest a case of “mature anarchy”? Will ASEAN become an ascendant or redundant instrument of regional peace and stability?
H. E. Makarim Wibisono, SOM Leader, Indonesia stated that as the chairman of the 37th ASEAN Standing Committee, Indonesia deems it of paramount importance for ASEAN to maintain its relevance vis-à-vis the rapidly changing regional and international environment. The Plan of Action for the ASEAN Security Community is aimed at nurturing the “we feelings” in ASEAN and has 6 components:
(1) Political development.
(2) Shaping and sharing of norms.
(3) Conflict prevention,
(4) Conflict resolution,
(5) Post-conflict peace building
(6) Implementing mechanism.
Mr Jusuf Wanandi, Co-founder; Member, Board of Trustees, CSIS, depicted three main issues, which are: The circumstances surrounding the plans of action; The history behind the ASEAN Security Community, and; The challenges within ASEAN and how the region can tackle this regional problems.
ASEAN is currently on a “mid-life crisis”. Eventually, the results will rely upon the act of ASEAN as a totality. Several strategic steps can be implemented by ASEAN is that ASEAN has to:
(1) Be realistic and recognize that in order to push concrete programs for ASEAN Security Community, we have to put the money where our mouth is.
(2) Redefine the members’ contribution (funding resources).
(3) Have solid enough institutions to secure implementations.
(4) Ensure people’s involvement. The government and bureaucrats will not be capable to solve the problems. NGOs, think tanks must be involved.
(5) Redefined itself and create an ASEAN Leadership.
The commentator of this session is Dato’ Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, Director General, Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), Malaysia, proposed 9 points:
(1) We should all welcome Bali Concord II as a very significant development for ASEAN.
(2) ASC must be regarded as a progression, as a building upon the foundation established earlier to what is pain-stakingly late since the crisis.
(3) ASC must address the security problems in ASEAN at present and future until 2020.
(4) Specific plans of the ASEAN Security Community must be proposed based on relevance, urgency, effectiveness and feasibility.
(5) There must be an understanding of what ASEAN really is as an institution.
(6) ASC must strengthen the neworks of bilateral mechanisms.
(7) Need to build up the habit of resolving conflicts through a “friendly” approach that enable further involvemnet between member states.
(8) ASC must addresss comprehensive security issues, especially non-traditional security issues, e.g. poverty, hunger, socio-economic equity, ethnic and religious conflict, natural disasters, etc.
(9) Creating interactive balance between economic development and political development will be the toughest in the agenda of Plans of action.
During this session, Mr
Jayaratnam, Counsellor, Embassy of Singapore,
Professor
Ramesh Thakur, UN University,
Eventually, the UN is essential for institutionalised multilateralism for underpinning and providing the framework for managing both new and old security threats. The real choice is between an ad hoc or rules based, unilateral or multilateral, divisive or consensual approaches and responses. The latter set of choices is likely to be the more efficient, effective and enduring; and the UN is central to the latter set of choices. With regards to international enforcement actions, he made a point that the UN remains the irreplaceable font of international authority and indispensable stamp of international legitimacy.
Mr
Geir O. Pedersen, Director of the
- How to prevent conflict before it breaks out.
- How to prevent escalation of conflicts.
- Actions taken to prevent humanitarian crisis.
- Actions taken to prevent recurrence of conflict, especially after negotiated settlement.
Despite the obvious failures due to inflated expectations, the trend of most conflicts has shown some declines in intensity. This is due to the peace making and peace implementation efforts and the recommitment of the major powers.
Session 3: The current state of ASEAN political security cooperation: Problems and prospects in forming the ASC
Pengiran Dato Paduka Osman Patra, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brunei Darussalam was the moderator of Session 3 titled ‘The Current State of ASEAN Political Security Cooperation: Problems and Prospects in Forming the ASC’.
There are many constraints and potentials offered in implementing the ASC. On the constraints side there are the issues such as the questions of sovereignty and interference, decision making based on consensus and the level of trust in bilateral relations and of political will. On the potentials side there are the renewed commitment manifested in the realisation of the ASEAN Community, stronger commitment for the further integration of ASEAN 10 and the establishment of many ASEAN mechanisms and processes.
Professor Carolina Hernandez, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Institute of Strategic and Development Studies (ISDS), Philippines, presented the fundamental problems on the forming of ASC, which include: The presence of great divides within ASEAN, especially economic, political, foreign policy and socio-development divides; The regional principles of non-interference and sovereignty adopted by all member states of ASEAN; and the changing mindset towards ASEAN mechanism due to the past pride.
All of these have been envisioned in ASEAN 2020, but implementation remains the most difficult task that requires great details. Preserving ASEAN as the forum of the elite will not do, we need to include the involvement of the people because they will eventually be the one relevant element to the end-say.
Dr Termsak Chalermpalanupap, Assistant Director, ASEAN Secretariat, presented a different angle by looking at efforts on moving ASEAN forward. The gist of the presentation was to propose a new paradigm that inculcates new sense of responsibility to make ASEAN work (“responsibility to cooperate”). The new ASC is much bigger than TAC and other security measures done in the past. We may need to come up with new mechanism to accommodate this vision. After 37 years, ASEAN has developed a habit of consultative meetings (500 meetings every year). What we have to do is to direct such commitment to more effective ways of conducting things.
This is also in support of Hernandez’s proposition that the people’s involvements are crucial. But one should note that without proper follow-ups from the national government level (such as proper socialisation), it would be impossible for people to know of what happens in the ASEAN mechanism.
As the commentator, Dr Rizal Sukma, Director of Studies, CSIS,
1. ASC opens the opportunity for ASEAN to take a more ordered steps based on the ‘ASEAN identity’ rhetoric.
2. ASC proposal opens the opportunity for 10 member states to recreate the new ASEAN identity.
3. The ASEAN Economic Community promised a deep economic integration and interdependence and it can be a base for ASC.
4.
The changing attitude within
the new leadership in
5. Internal restructuring of each member states is necessary.
He also proposed 4 possible scenarios:
1. There will be compromises amongst member states that would lead to ASC that is similar to non-interference policy.
2. We all can go back to status quo, of which ASEAN becomes irrelevant.
3.
4.
Session
4: UN mechanisms of regional conflict prevention and resolution
The first presenter, Mr Wiryono Sastrohandoyo, Senior Fellow, CSIS, focused his presentation on UN’s peacekeeping operations and intra-state conflicts. He stated that the rise of a new threat to security, namely internal threat, which has caused more and more civilians as casualties, has translated into the greater demand for the UN’s role in resolving peace. The UN response to these intra-state conflicts has been in the form of peacekeeping operations. Wiryono argued that the UN’s record so far in this field has been mixed. There have been prominent success stories alongside some glaring failures.
Nevertheless, Wiryono recognized the difficulties of dealing with intra-state conflicts. Whatever the deficiencies of the UN may be, it is still the best instrument that international community has crafted for its own collected security. Therefore, we need to continually strengthen it. In the context of ASEAN-UN cooperation, Wiryono felt that ASEAN should start establishing cooperation with UN on matters of security, considering that ASEAN currently does not play a significant role in the UN peacekeeping system. He put forward three ways in which ASEAN’s can contribute more, namely: (1) To start consultative forum among ASEAN countries’ foreign and defence authorities; (2) To co-establish a peacekeeping training centre, and; (3) To persuade developed country members of the ASEAN Regional Forum to provide assistance and cooperation.
The second speaker, Mr Geir O. Pedersen, Director of the
Pedersen stated that the UN is not alone
when it comes to activities in peacekeeping and preventive action. There has
been an increased of regional cooperation in the area, such as NATO, OSC,
EKOWAS and the EU. Although sometimes these regional organizations have
competing mandates with the UN, there has been a good room for cooperation
between them. In 2003, 39% of the world’s conflicts took place in
In the case of Israel-Palestine, Pedersen
admitted that at the beginning the UN did not play any significant role. The
dominant player in bringing conflicting parties to the negotiating table had
been the
In
The conflict in
Session
5: The relations between the UN and other regions/sub-regional organizations
(NATO, EU, EKOWAS, etc)
Ali argued that the ASC is one avenue to extend regional security cooperation, but noted that ASEAN is ill equipped to deal with intra-regional problems and transnational challenges. ASEAN can learn from other regional and sub-regional organizations such as OSCE, in terms of adopting more robust institutions and proactive approaches under the ASC, such as high commissioner on minority issues, conflict prevention centre, and confidence building measures.
However, negative examples such as SAARC
and GCC in
Dr Edy Prasetyono, Head of the Department of International Relations, CSIS, the second speaker, discussed some of the basic principles for cooperation between the UN and regional institutions. He reminded that historically, the UN was designed to be the primary institution to deal with international peace & security. The UN should maintain supremacy over regional organizations in conflicts. However, responding to some critics over the democratic deficit, over time the UN itself have made accommodation for change.
One principle maintained by the UN charter, is that the enforcement to address specific conflicts, should be under the Security Council (SC)’s consent. There have been, however, exceptions about this.
Prasetyono discussed five different forms of cooperation between the UN and regional organizations, namely, consultation, diplomatic and operational support, co-deployment and joint operations, and presented examples in each category. From these examples, the lessons learnt are that: (1) Regional security operations must obtain mandate from the SC in order to maintain their legal basis; (2) Security policies that work in one region may not work in others; (3) Today’s complex humanitarian emergencies require equally complex multidisciplinary responses, which only the UN has qualifications and experiences to provide.
Prasetyono then discussed the positive and negative aspects of having regional institutions in maintaining peace and stability. The advantage is that since members of regional organizations are the ones who would suffer direct effects, it is in their vital interest to preserve regional stability. Since they are more likely to be in tune with the conflict, they may provide a timely response to the looming crisis. They also have a more legitimate reason to intervene. The negative side is the perspective of being colonized.
He also stressed that the arrangement for
the UN and regional institutions should be sought without subordinating
regionalism to globalism. There are many modalities to improve cooperation and
the UN is important in providing legitimacy.
New trends have shown that we cannot avoid the increasingly opened regionalism, therefore cooperation between the UN and
regional organizations gains more importance.
On the topic of
cooperation between the UN and regional peacekeeping forces, Mr U
Thaung Tun, SOM Leader,
He also warned about non-traditional threats that maybe subject to dialogues between ASEAN and the UN. Non-traditional security threats are global challenges that require global responses. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the UN and ASEAN to cooperate, because they have common responsibilities with regard to maintaining peace and conflicts, particularly now that ASEAN is talking about forming the ASC.
Session
6: Prospect: Areas of cooperation to enhance human security in the region
The first speaker, Ms Joana Merlin-Scholtes, UNDP New York, focused on the ongoing and potential areas of collaboration between ASEAN-UN in human security. Before elaborating the areas of collaboration, she discussed the concept and importance of human security, as has been adopted by various bodies, especially human securities as a broadening form of state security. She supported that the concept adopt also non-traditional security threats and welcomed discussions on the ASC.
Merlin-Scholtes stated that the current
collaboration is still on its early stages and has yet to cover conflict
prevention, as demonstrated by ASEAN-UNDP Partnership Facility. She explained
various examples of UNDP’s role in working with national and local governments
in support of recovery and peace-building objectives (
Since the collaboration so far has been a reaction to the occurrence of conflict, instead of conflict prevention, she proposed some areas of cooperation in human security and conflict prevention. They include efforts to: (1) Jointly promote human security approaches to regional security; (2) Integrate conflict sensitivity and peace-building into development policies; (3) Support the strengthening of regional and national capacities for more effective conflict prevention; (4) Improve the effectiveness of current and future efforts, and; (5) (For ASEAN and the UN) to work together in fostering broad-ranging dialogues between stakeholders across the region in promoting human-security approach. The latter could include the development of ASEAN Regional Forum into a fully functioning regional conflict prevention mechanism.
She ended her presentation by supporting potential avenues through which these forms of collaboration could be pursued, such as establishing a flexible ad-hoc consultative mechanism as well as a conflict prevention support centre within the ASEAN Secretariat.
She first elaborated the background of the emergence for a more human security oriented development, how it became more relevant after the 1997 crisis. She also described the historical background on the evolving concept of human security within the UNDP Human Development Report (1994) and the Commission of Human Security. The report produced by the commission strengthened the two prongs approach to human security. Her discussion took upon the notes provided by the Report on the Commission on Human Security.
She discussed the context of ASEAN and development-related issues (economic, health, environment and education) for the development framework of human security. She elaborated how trade liberalization has greatly benefited economic security, health and environment, education and the community security, while at the same time also adversely impacted these issues. As an example, she raised the idea of competition in low-wage labour, which has adversely impacted workers’ condition in ASEAN.
She then explained the importance of human
security in the context of political security. When a conflict situation
arises, it is not sufficient to identify it as ethnic based and to assume that
ethnic approach is the answer. These unrests are not only a matter of ethnic
problems, the root causes could be economic, cultural, political or a
combination of three. We should apply a multidimensional view and sensitivity
in looking at conflicts in
As her final point, she proposed that ASEAN develops a surveillance system in order to prevent conflict. She suggested ASEAN to review proposal made by the Commission on Human Security and to adopt few areas and afterwards to set up a surveillance system, with some identified indicators.
The commentator for the session, Mr Landry Haryo Subianto, Department of International Relations, CSIS, focused his comments more on the concept of human security itself, posing the argument that the concept is still a highly-debated one. Human security is not a substitute for state security, while state security is still seen as a pre-condition of human security in its entirety. Because of the rise of contemporary and non-traditional threats to security, further international cooperation is necessary, as governments and state alone cannot tackle these contemporary issues.
He then outlined four main challenges to human security: (1) Political problems and national sensitivity, which bring about issues of state sovereignty and non-interference. (2) Capacity building, including protecting innocent civilians in conflict areas. (3) Focus and sense of urgency on the human security agenda. (4) Governance, corruption and lack of transparency, which have often been the sources of human insecurity. Subianto supported the idea of human security early warning system, participation of the people and civil society in detecting human security problems. To this, the ASC is a possible solution.
The first speaker of the session, Mr Marty
Natalegawa, Director General for ASEAN Cooperation,
Department of Foreign Affairs,
In ASEAN-UN conference last year, the
notion of ASC has not existed. Its presence now has put colours to the areas of
ASEAN-UN cooperation. With regard to how UN can play a role, Natalegawa
proposed that ASEAN observer’s status in UN be made official. He outlined some
entry points where UN can come in to help/engage within ASEAN to realize ASC,
such as: Under the political development, on the non-traditional security
issues, and also in the area of conflict prevention (i.e. early warning
mechanism) and conflict resolution. Most
of them are outlined in the ASC Plan of Action. He proposed to tap into the
UN’s extensive resources, experiences and comparative advantages.
The UN’s facilitating role in the ASC could
to help develop ASEAN’s capacity in dealing with conflict resolution. The basic
motivation for this is to provide a regional option, or the ASEAN option, as a
venue for peacekeeping and conflict resolution. At the moment, the regional
option is not available. While it is not obligatory to take that option, the
basic idea of the ASEAN Peacekeeping force within the ASC would play an
important role in conflict resolution.
Mr
Omar Halim, Former Senior Staff Member of the UN, in his presentation, reiterated and emphasized the importance of UN
by bringing up the shortcomings of the organization. He then cited some
examples of where UN has succeeded in peacekeeping operations. In the context
of human security, developing countries have experienced chaos and seen failed
states. In that sense, without international assistance made possible by the
UN, human security would certainly be jeopardized.
By relating to his experience in a
peacekeeping force in
ASEAN has succeeded in preventing
inter-state conflicts, but intra-state conflicts have persisted significantly
within certain ASEAN countries. This is the primary challenge ASEAN has to deal
with as it affects the stability of the region. He complimented the Indonesian
government initiative to propose ASC. Nevertheless, he still questioned the
notion of ASEAN Peace-keeping force. Peacekeeping forces should be made
disposable to the UN, as an obligation of individual ASEAN member countries.
This conference has been discussing about
the evolving principles, from non-interference to enhanced interaction. There
could be a mechanism within ASC to try to monitor the possibility of conflicts
within countries, as well as inter-countries. He aired the idea of ASEAN
Security Council. This council would closely monitor the developments of inter
and intra-states in order to see if there is any need for ASEAN as a group to
‘intervene’. Another crucial institution
would be one that give humanitarian assistance in
light of natural disaster.
Halim concluded by differentiating between individual members countries cooperation with the UN and collective ASEAN cooperation with the UN. UN’s extensive experience in the field of post-conflict activities should be the entry point to pursue areas of cooperation between ASEAN and the UN.
In his comments, Mr Geir O. Pedersen,
Director of the
The potential areas of cooperation are
conflict resolution and post-conflict recovery. He also stressed the need to
focus on region-specific areas such as refugee flows, illicit trade in drugs,
trafficking in women and children, food security and population pressure, and
also terrorism. Regional organizations should be the primary body responsible
for peace-keeping in their areas, but there should also be good room for
flexible cooperation with the UN. Pedersen responded positively to the
suggestion of obtaining an observer status for ASEAN in the UN. He ended his
comments by reiterating that there is already a strategic framework and
political will for cooperation, therefore it is time to realize it.