Inter-state Conflict Resolution in Southeast Asia: Strategies, Mechanisms, and Best Practices

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.