Preventive Diplomacy and the ASEAN Regional Forum

Ralf EmmersCoordinator, Multilateralism and Regionalism Programme

Tan See Seng Head of Research, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)

S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Singapore

Evolution of Preventive Diplomacy: Cold War

• PD not new. UN Charter Article 33 calls on disputing parties to seek solutions by ‘negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or othr peaceful means of their own choice…’ UN Security Council to call on parties to settle disputes by such means.

• PD as preventing disputes from escalating to conflicts & limiting them from spreading (D. Hammarskjöld). Aim to avert major East-West conflict.

• Predominantly an inter-state enterprise, although UN engaged in limited efforts at preventing escalation by insulating intra-state/civil conflicts.

Evolution of Preventive Diplomacy: Post-Cold War

• Discernable rising interest worldwide in PD, within broader context of relaxation of Cold War logics and redefinition in meaning and practice of security. Under B. Boutros-Ghali, PD restated as ‘the use of diplomatic techniques to prevent disputes from arising, prevent them from escalating into armed conflict if they do arise, and, if that fails, to prevent the armed conflict from spreading’ (An Agenda for Peace, 1992).

• Expansion of PD’s parameters to deal with with various ‘thresholds’ throughout the entire anatomy/life-cycle of a conflict.

• Involvement by other regional actors/agencies in PD. Broadening of PD beyond the traditional realm of conflict to include other concerns, e.g., democracy and democratization, human rights, humanitarian crisis and so forth.

• PD as both inter-state and intra-state in orientation.

ARF and Preventive Diplomacy

• Concept Paper envisaged 3 developmental states: Stage I: Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs); Stage II: Development of Preventive Diplomacy (PD) Mechanisms; and Stage III: Development of Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms.

• To date, the ARF has concentrated mainly on Stage I and to a lesser extent, concurrently, on Stage II measures.

• The ARF has been successful in achieving its twofold approach towards confidence-building. How?

• Firstly, by successfully institutionalizing ‘the ASEAN way’ as a shared code of behavior and secondly, by establishing CBMs as the central action program for the ARF participants to implement.

• Concrete CBMs have been implemented at both a Track 1 and Track 2 level.

• E.g. the ARF Inter-Sessional Support Group (ISG) on CBMs; Inter-Sessional Meetings on Search and Rescue Coordination and Cooperation, Peacekeeping, Disaster Relief Seminars; expert group meetings on De-mining, Transnational Crime, Terrorist Financing and Prevention, Marine Security Challenges.

ARF and Preventive Diplomacy• In contrast to CBM, there has been more controversy, debate, and

divergence in attitudes toward PD among the ARF participants.

• This is particularly true due to concerns over the erosion of sovereignty

• Activists: early warning systems, fact-finding missions, enhanced good offices role of ARF chair in dispute mediation.

• Conservatives: define PD first before adopting measures, notably inter-state conception of PD.

• Continued discussions within the ISG meetings on CBMs, as well as within three CSCAP workshops on PD led to the development of a working definition and statement of principles on PD.

• PD as inter-state enterprise underpinned by diplomatic convention (ARF meeting in Hanoi in 2001). “ARF Concept and Principles of Preventive Diplomacy” specified a definition for and principles of PD

ARF and Preventive Diplomacy

• PD has been defined as “consensual diplomatic and political action taken by sovereign states with the consent of all directly involved parties”

• PD is meant to prevent disputes from arising between States; to prevent such disputes from escalating into armed confrontation; and to minimise the impact of such disputes on the region.

• Eight key principles of PD: Diplomacy, Non-Coercive, Timeliness, Trust and Confidence, Consultation and Consensus, Voluntary, inter-state conflicts, conducted in accordance with international law.

• A number of PD initiatives have been identified: Confidence Building Measures, Norms Building, Enhancing Channels of Communication and Role of the ARF Chair. The first two overlap with the stage one process.

• The ARF has generally been slow in achieving its own benchmarks; e.g. with regards to “expanding the role of the chair”.