Carl Baker AWS
Preventive Diplomacy Implementation in the ARF Carl Baker Pacific Forum Preventive Diplomacy Workshop Siem Reap, Cambodia February 27, 2018
Outline
•Implementing ARF PD work plan •ARF Concept Paper: moving toward PD •ARF PD workshops •Looking ahead
ARF Work Plan Implementation 2011 • 11 action lines from 2008 ARF PD Study, EEP, and Hanoi POA • • • • • • • • • • •
Strengthen concrete cooperation in non-‐traditional security Continue to implement and enhance CBMs Conduct workshops on PD Review/Analyze State input to ARF Annual Security Outlook Develop standardized formats and reporting criteria for CBMs ID/partner with other organizations for capacity building/training/sharing Strengthen ARF Unit EEPs, CSCAP and ASEAN-‐ISIS monitor/identify potential flashpoints Consider Regional Risk Reduction Centre Develop PD mechanisms (based on consensus, voluntary measures) Explore mediation, facilitated dialogues and conciliation
ARF Concept Paper: moving toward PD • • • •
Approved in 2014 Accepts 2001 ARF definition and principles as a given Emphasizes the three-‐stage process Three phased approach • Phase 1: Learning, sharing, understanding • Workshops and training programs to familiarize with PD • Sharing best practices and information on non-‐sensitive issues
• Exploring/developing PD tools • Designing PD mechanisms • Quiet diplomacy contrasted with fact finding/good offices/ observer missions
• Exploring PD opportunities (upon invitation) • Implement in case that has potential for violent conflict • Strict adherence to ARF PD guiding principles (consensus and consent)
Examples provided for PD Activities • Phase I – Learning, Sharing, Understanding • Share defense white papers, expenditures and regional security outlooks • Military exercises to promote mutual trust and not target other participant • Encourage early notification, on a voluntary basis, to inform in advance and/or invite other to observe joint military exercises • Phase II – Exploring & Developing Preventive Diplomacy Tools • Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) • Terms of Reference for Friends of the ARF Chair • Phase III – Exploring PD opportunities (upon invitation) • Cooperate on transnational issues of concern • Encourage parties to use side-‐lines of ARF meetings for dialogue
ARF PD Activities in 2014 • 21st ARF Chairman’s statement • Promote PD through action oriented activity and work plan implementation • Discuss PD norms and PD capacity building • AIPR to monitor security trends, ID flashpoints, and recommend PD measures
• Roundtable on Training Resources for PD (Wellington, March 2014) • Recommended establishing training course • Early warning tools/conflict analysis, monitoring, and fact finding skills
• Seminar on PD and Mediation (Bandar Seri Begawan, Oct 2014) • Training Course on PD (Beijing and Nanjing, October 2014) • Recommendations from Wellington roundtable not included • Report highlighted discussion regarding broad vs. narrow view of PD
ARF PD Activities 2015 • 22nd ARF Chairman’s statement • Reiterate commitment to 2001 PD concept and principles • Welcomes creation of a “pool of experts” that understand the region • Pleased with the range of activities • Symposium on PD (Bangkok, July 2015) • Examines case studies (both inter-‐ and intra-‐state conflicts included) • Recommends an ARF training course and a “community of practice” • Workshop on Mediation, PD and Conflict Prevention (Yogyarkarta, Nov. 2015) • Building peace through democratization • ARF sessions focused on mediation training and role of spoilers in peace process
• Number of PD ISGs reduced to one per year rather than two
ARF PD Activities 2016/2017 • 23rd ARF Chairman’s statement • Reiterate commitment to 2001 concept and principles of PD • Ministers note recommendation for EEPs to become EEP focal points
• ARF Training Course on PD (Hanoi, March 2016) • Seminar on PD and Non-‐traditional Security (Nanjing, Nov. 2016) • 24th ARF Chairman’s statement • More PD activities based on work plan and 2001 concept/principles
• Workshop on PD in Post-‐conflict (Dili, April 2017) • Seminar on PD, Mediation and Early Warning (Yangon, June 2017)
Where are we now? • ARF committed to excessively narrow definition of PD • PD as reaction to specific conflicts • No recognition of ASEAN early warning mechanisms • No apparent interest in reassessing 2001 concept and principles
• Reification of the three stages • Emphasis on norms of consensus, consultation and non-‐interference used to discourage collective action • Activities lack coherence • • • •
No established training curriculum or course Emphasis on mediation and negotiation training No follow-‐through with attendees at symposiums/workshops/training courses No “community of experts” being built
Looking ahead • Refocus ARF efforts around supporting ASEAN institutionalization process • ASEAN centrality in defining security threats and PD in Southeast Asia • Recognize non-‐traditional security issues as primary threat • Recognize norms of good governance and protection of vulnerable populations as basis for PD
• Partner role should be to facilitate capacity building of ASEAN institutions
• Develop and coordinate early warning mechanisms to support threat concerns where interests of partner countries intersect • Reconceptualize “stages” of implementation to reflect interaction of components rather than as a linear progression Concept
Threat
Policies
Institutions
Conclusion • Fundamental disagreements between partner countries prevents forward progress on PD with the ARF • ASEAN has moved forward with an implicit understanding of shared values and acceptance of cooperation among the 10 members • In some cases has included outside partners • ADMM and ADMM+ has shown more receptivity to cooperative arrangements in response to perceived security threats • Refocus the efforts of the ARF • Provides venue for articulating security concerns from broader region • Remains an important forum for promoting security cooperation • Recognize value of other ASEAN-‐based institutions in institutionalizing PD
Thank you
Outline
•Implementing ARF PD work plan •ARF Concept Paper: moving toward PD •ARF PD workshops •Looking ahead
ARF Work Plan Implementation 2011 • 11 action lines from 2008 ARF PD Study, EEP, and Hanoi POA • • • • • • • • • • •
Strengthen concrete cooperation in non-‐traditional security Continue to implement and enhance CBMs Conduct workshops on PD Review/Analyze State input to ARF Annual Security Outlook Develop standardized formats and reporting criteria for CBMs ID/partner with other organizations for capacity building/training/sharing Strengthen ARF Unit EEPs, CSCAP and ASEAN-‐ISIS monitor/identify potential flashpoints Consider Regional Risk Reduction Centre Develop PD mechanisms (based on consensus, voluntary measures) Explore mediation, facilitated dialogues and conciliation
ARF Concept Paper: moving toward PD • • • •
Approved in 2014 Accepts 2001 ARF definition and principles as a given Emphasizes the three-‐stage process Three phased approach • Phase 1: Learning, sharing, understanding • Workshops and training programs to familiarize with PD • Sharing best practices and information on non-‐sensitive issues
• Exploring/developing PD tools • Designing PD mechanisms • Quiet diplomacy contrasted with fact finding/good offices/ observer missions
• Exploring PD opportunities (upon invitation) • Implement in case that has potential for violent conflict • Strict adherence to ARF PD guiding principles (consensus and consent)
Examples provided for PD Activities • Phase I – Learning, Sharing, Understanding • Share defense white papers, expenditures and regional security outlooks • Military exercises to promote mutual trust and not target other participant • Encourage early notification, on a voluntary basis, to inform in advance and/or invite other to observe joint military exercises • Phase II – Exploring & Developing Preventive Diplomacy Tools • Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) • Terms of Reference for Friends of the ARF Chair • Phase III – Exploring PD opportunities (upon invitation) • Cooperate on transnational issues of concern • Encourage parties to use side-‐lines of ARF meetings for dialogue
ARF PD Activities in 2014 • 21st ARF Chairman’s statement • Promote PD through action oriented activity and work plan implementation • Discuss PD norms and PD capacity building • AIPR to monitor security trends, ID flashpoints, and recommend PD measures
• Roundtable on Training Resources for PD (Wellington, March 2014) • Recommended establishing training course • Early warning tools/conflict analysis, monitoring, and fact finding skills
• Seminar on PD and Mediation (Bandar Seri Begawan, Oct 2014) • Training Course on PD (Beijing and Nanjing, October 2014) • Recommendations from Wellington roundtable not included • Report highlighted discussion regarding broad vs. narrow view of PD
ARF PD Activities 2015 • 22nd ARF Chairman’s statement • Reiterate commitment to 2001 PD concept and principles • Welcomes creation of a “pool of experts” that understand the region • Pleased with the range of activities • Symposium on PD (Bangkok, July 2015) • Examines case studies (both inter-‐ and intra-‐state conflicts included) • Recommends an ARF training course and a “community of practice” • Workshop on Mediation, PD and Conflict Prevention (Yogyarkarta, Nov. 2015) • Building peace through democratization • ARF sessions focused on mediation training and role of spoilers in peace process
• Number of PD ISGs reduced to one per year rather than two
ARF PD Activities 2016/2017 • 23rd ARF Chairman’s statement • Reiterate commitment to 2001 concept and principles of PD • Ministers note recommendation for EEPs to become EEP focal points
• ARF Training Course on PD (Hanoi, March 2016) • Seminar on PD and Non-‐traditional Security (Nanjing, Nov. 2016) • 24th ARF Chairman’s statement • More PD activities based on work plan and 2001 concept/principles
• Workshop on PD in Post-‐conflict (Dili, April 2017) • Seminar on PD, Mediation and Early Warning (Yangon, June 2017)
Where are we now? • ARF committed to excessively narrow definition of PD • PD as reaction to specific conflicts • No recognition of ASEAN early warning mechanisms • No apparent interest in reassessing 2001 concept and principles
• Reification of the three stages • Emphasis on norms of consensus, consultation and non-‐interference used to discourage collective action • Activities lack coherence • • • •
No established training curriculum or course Emphasis on mediation and negotiation training No follow-‐through with attendees at symposiums/workshops/training courses No “community of experts” being built
Looking ahead • Refocus ARF efforts around supporting ASEAN institutionalization process • ASEAN centrality in defining security threats and PD in Southeast Asia • Recognize non-‐traditional security issues as primary threat • Recognize norms of good governance and protection of vulnerable populations as basis for PD
• Partner role should be to facilitate capacity building of ASEAN institutions
• Develop and coordinate early warning mechanisms to support threat concerns where interests of partner countries intersect • Reconceptualize “stages” of implementation to reflect interaction of components rather than as a linear progression Concept
Threat
Policies
Institutions
Conclusion • Fundamental disagreements between partner countries prevents forward progress on PD with the ARF • ASEAN has moved forward with an implicit understanding of shared values and acceptance of cooperation among the 10 members • In some cases has included outside partners • ADMM and ADMM+ has shown more receptivity to cooperative arrangements in response to perceived security threats • Refocus the efforts of the ARF • Provides venue for articulating security concerns from broader region • Remains an important forum for promoting security cooperation • Recognize value of other ASEAN-‐based institutions in institutionalizing PD
Thank you
