|
|
The Fourth Southeast
Asian Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN) Regional
Workshop on “Inter-state Conflict Resolution
in Southeast Asia: Strategies, Mechanisms and
Best Practices” was organised by the Southeast
Asian Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN) and the
Research and Education for Peace Unit (REPUSM),
Universiti Sains Malaysia, between 15-17 July
2002.The event was funded by the Department for
Research Co-operation (SAREC), the research arm
of the Swedish International Development and
Cooperation Agency (Sida). Fifty-four participants
from all over the Southeast Asian region, as
well as from Sweden participated in this event.
The workshop was organised based on the following questions
regarding inter-state conflicts and their management
in the region:
| 1. |
What mechanisms have been utilized to tackle
these problems? |
| 2. |
What strategies have been used to ensure that
the countries remained friendly? |
| 3. |
Are there any regional mechanisms that have contributed
to this situation? |
| 4. |
Can any lessons be learned from the practices,
mechanisms and strategies utilized? |
Thus, the workshop objective were to identify inter-state
conflicts in the region and the mechanisms used to resolve
them, to evaluate the effectiveness of these mechanisms,
and to recognize the lessons learned from these experiences.
More specifically, the workshop aimed for the following:
| 1. |
To identify inter-state conflicts in the region,
both in general as well as according to the perspectives
of the Southeast Asian countries. |
| 2. |
To identify the conflict management mechanisms,
strategies and practices used to tackle these conflicts. |
| 3. |
To evaluate the effectiveness of arrangements
to manage inter-state conflicts. |
Several panels were formed to discuss these issues, including
panel sessions on the management of inter-state conflict,
roles of regionalism and regional organizations in conflict
management, as well as on case studies of bilateral and
multilateral conflict situations in the region.
The first panel was on the theme of “The Management
of Inter-state Conflict: A Theoretical Construct”.
This panel provided a theoretical outlook on the management
of inter-state conflicts. The three papers presented
concluded that:
| - |
Although conflicts are inherent in society and
between nations, they are often manageable and
need not be violet. The question is really how
we deal with these conflicts. Both state and non-state
actors can help in defining conflicts and the mechanisms
necessary to resolve them. |
| - |
The focus of security must be clear as to what
and who it is for. This is especially because of
the proliferation of non-state actors at both the
national and international levels. It was also
mentioned in one of the papers that human emancipation
is now the focus of non-traditional security concerns. |
| - |
There needs to be an evaluation of current security
concerns in the period after the September 11 event.
The last paper in this session also concluded that
because of this event, the three previous debates
on the “end of story”, “uni-polarity”,
and “clash of civilizations” are no
longer relevant. |
The second panel with the theme of “Multilateral
Conflict in Southeast Asia, with a focus on the South
China Sea. One of the papers in this session also discussed
the settlement of maritime disputes in the Gulf of Tonkin.
This panel concluded that:
| - |
The framework of “conflict transformation” should
be applied to the conflict in the Southeast China
Sea. This includes a reappraisal of current management
strategies, which have not been very successful.
Any new framework should also ensure that formal
demands representing internal needs and fears of
all parties involved directly and indirectly in
the conflict be included. |
| - |
The association of Southeast Asian Nation’s
(ASEAN) lack of internal stability and unity on
the issue has resulted in its inability to effectively
negotiation and resolve the issue. Internal consensus
must first be achieved before negotiation can began
with non-ASEAN claimants. |
The third, fourth and fifth panel sessions analysed the
cases of conflict in the region. The cases discussed
included relations between Indonesia - East Timor, Malaysia – Singapore,
Brunei – Malaysia, as well conflict cases involving
countries like the Philippines, Cambodia, Vietnam and
Thailand.
Panel session three included a paper on the post-conflict
scenario between Indonesia and East Timor. It argued
that this scenario involves three major issues, namely,
boundary, human rights and refugee. The paper concluded
that the boundary and refugee issues may be dealt with
using bilateral mechanisms. However, the human rights
issues must be handled by the delicate relations between
these two countries can be analysed using “political
realism” as a tool of analysis. Looking at it this
way implies that each party would have to look after
its own interests, including security interests and weighing
them in relation to its neighbours’. Relations
between the parties also need to be taken into account.
Points were also made about economic ties and co-operation
as indications of good relationships between countries.
This refers to interdependence as a tool of conflict
management between nations. The paper which examines
Malaysia – Brunei relations focused on Limbang
as a case study of territorial and maritime dispute between
the two countries. It traced the conflict back to the
colonial period to determine the root causes of the conflict
situation.
The fourth panel session commenced with a paper examining
non-traditional security challenges and their implications
on inter-state disputes. Using the Philippine experience,
the paper argued that while military institutions should
still be maintained, efforts should now be directed towards
new types of threats. The other papers complement this
first paper by giving examples of new security concerns
ranging from the issue of migration and how it threatens
the integrity of state borders to the roles of civilian
agencies in addressing non-traditional security measures.
Panel session five continued the discussion on non-traditional
security concerns. The first paper discussed the changing
threats, perceptions, and realities of terrorism in the
ASEAN region, especially after the September 11 event.
The points raised both during the presentation as well
as in the ensuing discussion included the presence of
linkages between Islamic, groups in the ASEAN region
and international terrorist groups. The discussion also
debated the root causes of terrorism, whether they are
based on poverty and underdevelopement, or caused by
groups defending Islam and Muslim interests, or because
there is a lack of channels for these groups to air their
grievances and unhappiness. The second paper was a case
study of the situation in southern Thailand. It discussed
the changing policies which affected relationships between
the Thai government and the Malay-Muslim Pattani group
in the area. The paper argued that terrorism and separatism
sentiments were created by the previous authoritarian
regime. However, policies made during the democratic
regime have paved the way for the integration of Malay-Muslim
Pattanis into the Thai society. The last paper made the
connection between environmental security and human security
issues within Southeast Asia. It argued that there is
a strong connection between these two.
The sixth panel session focused on the role of regionalism
and regional organizations in conflict management. Emphasis
was also placed on ASEAN’s role in the management
of conflict in the region. The first paper commented
that because of the shift from conventional to non-conventional
issues in conflicts in the region, this presented a “new” focus
for security concerns for the ASEAN countries. As such
there is a need to “rethink” the general
framework for conflict management. The second paper focused
on ASEAN’s role in the border conflicts involving
Cambodia and its neighbours. It concluded that ASEAN
has not played a role in resolving these conflicts. The
third and fourth papers looked specifically at the conflict
management framework under the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation
(TAC), including the provisions to set up the “high
council” to resolve intra-ASEAN disputes.
A workshop session on the best practices in inter-state
conflict management was also conducted. In this session,
the participants were divided into two workshop groups
to discuss “conventional” and “non-conventional” issues.
The groups were asked to discuss the best practices in
conflict management based on the following guidelines:
| 1. |
To identify the issues and actual cases of conflicts. |
| 2. |
To identify conflict management mechanisms and
strategies utilised |
| 3. |
To evaluate the degrees of success of the mechanisms
and strategies, which include the roles of individual
parties and regional parties and regional organizations,
and the factors contributing to their success or
failure. |
| 4. |
To give suggestion on alternative and/or new
mechanisms and strategies. |
The group on “conventional” issues identified
territory/boundary, resources, the build up of arms,
and the sea lines of communication as major concerns.
The mechanisms that have been effectively utilised to
address these issues included government-government negotiations
(Track1) and inputs from think tanks (Track 2 or Track
1 ½), and civil society (academe and non-government
organizations). The group also highlighted the inability
of ASEAN to successfully deal with these matters.
The group on “non-conventional” issues identified
transnational organised crime, piracy, drug and human
trafficking, religious extremism, non-government organisations,
the environment, the clashes of values, the proliferation
of non-state actors, foreign funding, and the media as
major concerns. The mechanisms used to address these
issues included bilateral/multilateral arrangement, the
involvement of third parties, and co-operation programmes.
To improve the strategies and mechanisms of conflict
management, it was suggested there should be strengthening
of the ASEAN secretariat, the creation of new norms,
balancing the state and civil society, and promoting
peace journalism in the media.
The workshop concluded with the participants agreeing
that there should be rethinking of conflict management
strategies to handle inter-state conflicts in the region.
This is because the post-September 11 event has given
way to new issues like the “war on terrorism” and
the rise of non-conventional issues in international
politics today. The workshop ended with the following
concluding statements:
| - |
That approaches to conflict management in Southeast
Asia should be more comprehensive. All the conflict
management strategies ranging from conflict prevention
to conflict ending should be utilised. However,
steps should be taken to emphasise "positive" mechanisms
that can foster peace-making and peace-building
efforts in the long run. |
| - |
That because of the changed nature of conflict
situation in the region, the involvement of civil
society should be increased. Inputs from people
who are affected by the conflict should be taken
into account. |
| - |
Drawing from the conclusions in the group discussions,
it was recommended that the ASEAN framework for
conflict management be strengthened. This can be
done by strengthening and improving the ASEAN Secretariat
and outlining clearly the conflict management roles
of ASEAN. |
| - |
That working groups, especially research-based
working groups, be established to continue the
work done at this workshop. Joint projects involving
members of the network should be initiated, encouraged,
and promoted. This, hopefully, will continue the
momentum achieved at this workshop. |
| - |
Lasting, it was also recommended that conflict
management activities in the region be institutionalised,
if not by existing foral organisations, then by
international non-government organisations concerned
with peace and conflict issues like the SEACSN. |
|
|
|
|
