Management and Resolution of Inter-State Conflicts in Southeast Asia

The paper by Hamzah starts with a look at territorial and maritime disputes between Malaysia and Brunei. Some of these have dated back to their colonial or protectorate years while others have been more recent. These disputes include the claim on Louisa Reef in the South China Sea, the land and maritime border demarcation between the two, and the dispute over the Limbang district. According to Hamzah, the interesting fact about these disputes is that they have not escalated into any armed conflict. The thrust of this paper is to examine why this is so by utilising Limbang as its case study. Hamzah traces the origin of the Limbang territorial dispute during Brunei’s protectorate period and its evolution in Brunei’s modern era. He also looks into the mechanisms utilised by both parties in dealing with the dispute and discusses the prospects for resolution. Finally, he goes on to examine the factors that are responsible for making sure that the dispute does not escalate into an armed conflict.

 The next chapter is by Qasim Ahmad on the question of sanctions versus constructive engagement in the case of Myanmar. Qasim starts by looking at the policy of both the US and the EU on Myanmar, especially their attempts at tying the conduct of foreign relations to human rights issue. He notes that the policy has brought disadvantages to both countries and a rethink might be possible in the future. Qasim asks whether these two countries would now give in to their economic lobbyists or interests. Or would they maintain that any compromise on their present stand towards the military government in Yangon would tarnish their very own democratic image and send, at the same time, the ‘wrong’ message to the world at large? Qasim argues that the ‘constructive engagement’ policy advocated by ASEAN has broken new ground and promises a more welcome future, if and when a genuine and lasting national reconciliation can be engendered. Should that happen then a lot of parties, Qasim concludes, including the US and the EU, could find themselves in a lot more comfortable situation.

 In the next chapter, Nguyen Hong Thao looks at the case study of the Gulf of Tonkin, where Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have been in dispute for twenty-seven years, and how it has been managed. Nguyen claims that it was settled by two agreements, signed in Beijing, on December 25th, 2000. The first agreement was on the delimitation of territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves (agreement on maritime delimitation) while the other one was on fishing co-operation. Nguyen then goes into great detail about the conflicts and highlights the moves made to settle the conflict amicably.

The last paper by Kamarulnizam looks at the way the global war on terrorism has changed the way we look at the structure and problems of international politics. Kamarulnizam claims that this new war against terrorism is like “fighting an enemy who is already dead or no longer exists”. The key actor that could influence the international systems involves more than a single state. Security and defence no longer can be defined as the ability of a state to protect its territory and sovereignty since the enemy itself is unknown. He stresses that terrorism has challenged governments in the region to redefine and re-conceptualize security. It has also challenged the way states perceived and look at their potential adversary or enemy, as well as on the whole question of security. Traditionally, the source of threats were clearly identified and defined and the actors were in most cases the state itself. This is not so with the current threat emanating from terrorism. Kamarulnizam argues that terrorism, which has a transnational nature, puts nation-states into a new security dilemma. Terrorism, to Kamarulnizam is like fighting the war on drugs, which is an open-ended war. It has neither a starting point nor an end point, and since terrorism has no nation-state base it is therefore very difficult to combat. Kamarulnizam asks the question of who the terrorist groups in the region are, and whether they really belong to this category. He argues that due to their own interests and pressure from the United States, some governments in the region have conveniently labelled these movements as terrorist groups so that they could receive international support for their efforts to crush these movements. Kamarulnizam concludes by saying that countries in the region have labelled all their political militant oppositions as terrorists for their own political gain. He also says that there is an over-reaction to the global war against terrorism in this region, and that the issue, either terrorism or militancy, should be approached and managed prudently.

The papers in this book are very important due to the nature of the subject matter during this time of global and regional uncertainties. It is hope that the papers will be able to provoke some thoughts on the issues, not only among academicians and students of the subject, but also among policymakers and the public at large.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution and support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) to the SEACSN. Without their generous support, it would not be possible for us to organize SEACSN activities around the region. I would also like to thank all the contributors and participants of the SEACSN Regional Workshop on Inter-state Conflicts and Conflict Resolution held in Penang, Malaysia in 2002. Lastly, I would like to thank all the staff at the SEACSN Regional Office at the Research and Education for Peace, Universiti Sains Malaysia, for their patience and for their hard work in making this publication possible. Lee Choo, Lukman, Julayda, Shazlin, Anne Dickinson, Azeem, Syed Yusof, Ina, and Akmar – thank you all!

Kamarulzaman Askandar

Southeast Asian Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN)

& Research and Education for Peace

Universiti Sains Malaysia

March 2003