Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific

9th General Conference

Prioritizing Mutual Trust and Win-Win Cooperation

Beijing, December 2-4, 2013

REPORTCSCAP CHINA

1

Part IINTRODUCTION
The 9th General Conference of the Council for Security Cooperation in the
Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) was convened in Beijing, China，from 2 to 4 December 2013.
It is the first time the CSCAP General Conference was held in China. CSCAP China
served as the host committee. CSCAP China received generous financial andtechnical assistances from various CSCAP member committees, especially from
CSCAP Australia, CSCAP New Zealand, CSCAP Indonesia, the CSCAP Secretariat,
and China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) in making the Conference a big
success.
The 9th General Conference has drawn great attention from the Asia-Pacific region
with more than 300 participants. In addition to representatives from CSCAP Member
Committees, many policymakers, security experts and scholars, members of the
diplomatic corps in Beijing, as well as regional and local journalists were present at
the Conference and made their contribution to the meeting. A large group of young
scholars participated in the Conference, and among them the most notable participants
were from the Pacific Forum Young Leaders Program. The Vice Foreign Minister ofChina, H.E. Mr. Liu Zhenmin delivered a luncheon speech on the “Evolving Security
Situation in Asia and the Role of China”, and Lieutenant General Ren Haiquan, Vice
President of the Academy of Military Science of China, talked on China’s national
defense policy in the dinner speech.
Whiling drafting the conference agenda, CSCAP China conducted wide consultations
with colleagues from other CSCAP Member Committees. The agenda put the priority
on achieving mutual trust and win-win cooperation in the face of a broad ranging
security challenges in the region. The organizers, with the help of all CSCAP Member
Committees, managed to invite the participation of distinguished role-players whoshared their minds in high-quality and substantive presentations and thus created open,
frank and friendly discussions and exchange of views during the six-session
conference.

2

Part IIHIGHLIGHTS AND DEBATES

Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Opening Remarks
Ambassador MA Zhengang, Chair, CSCAP China
Ambassador Leela K. Ponappa, CSCAP Co-Chair
The conference was opened by Ambassador Ma Zhengang, Chair of the host CSCAP
Committee. On behalf of CSCAP China, Ambassador Ma welcomed all participants tothe conference. He stressed the importance of the 9th General Conference since it was
conducted at a time when the Asia-Pacific region as well as the world was undergoinggreat changes. He also expressed his hope that, through very frank and friendly
discussions, mutual understanding and some consensus could be reached andcooperation and friendship promoted. Although CSCAP is not a government institute,
through our efforts made in Track II, we can influence governments to work together
for a peaceful and prosperous Asia Pacific region.
Ambassador Leela K Ponappa, CSCAP Co-Chair, in her opening remarks, expressed
her pleasure to have the 9th General Conference held in Beijing, and extended her
gratitude to CSCAP China for hosting this event and for its effective organizing
efforts. She also thanked all members from 19 countries and CSCAP Secretariat who
have supported the conference in ways of providing financial assistance andsponsorship, shared expertise and advice and assistance in searching role players.
Ambassador Leela K Ponappa mentioned that it will be twenty years since theadoption of the CSCAP Charter. So this conference is also an anniversary celebration.
CSCAP has reached this milestone thanks to the initiative persistence andcommitment of the leaders of its founding institutions, some of whom are present here
today. Their foresight and dedication to development of a structured process forregional confidence-building and security cooperation with the objective ofidentifying and forwarding policy recommendations to intergovernmental bodies in
the region should be lauded. Over the past twenty years, CSCAP has sought to engage
the Track I in the region as well as to reach out to the wider body of interested public
opinion on specific aspects of the security environment, and measures forcooperation.
CSCAP work takes place through the papers and discussions of its study groups,
through the memos produced by the study groups, and forwarded to the ARF on awide variety of issues, through interactions with governments at the national level, bymember committees and with the ARF at its ISMs and in its ISGs; also throughperiodic publications including the annual CSCAP Regional Security Outlook.
3

CSCAP also works through the general conference held once every two years.
CSCAP will thus enter its third decade in a regional environment rich in potentials,
but fraught with great tension and some risks. The region’s security concerns include
geopolitical disputes over territories and waters, threats of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters, drug-trafficking, cyber security
concerns, transit borders, and threat of terrorism. The attacks in Bali, New York,
Mumbai and most recently in Beijing stoutly demonstrate that we have a common
interest. The ravages of natural disasters have caused so much death and destructionthat calls not just for our sympathy and prayers and condolences, but also forconcerted action in disaster management. As the security issues facing Asia Pacificexpand in scope, there have been growing expectations of the regional security
architecture to be able to deal with them. The ARF was established in 1994 as the
security arm of ASEAN. While the region’s security situation has changed since then,the ARF too has changed and grown in scope, and other regional security entities havealso been created, notably the ADMM+ and the EAS. Since the 8 Th CSCAP General
Conference in Hanoi in 2011, these bodies have been joined by the EAMF, theExpanded ASEAN Maritime Forum, which was first convened in October, 2012.
Amidst this dual expansion of the issues and the institutions, we are confident that thecontinued and enhanced efforts of CSCAP can make a meaningful contribution to theprocess of security cooperation in this region by providing Track II inputs which theTrack I might not be easily able to address for reasons of operational pressures orsensitivities.
In conclusion Ambassador Leela K Ponappa expressed her hope that the 9 th CSCAP
General Conference would be another step in this direction and she looked forward to
substantive presentations and discussions in the conference.
Session One
Building A New Type of Major-Country Relations for the Benefit of the
Asia-Pacific Region
Chair: Professor Jim Rolfe, Acting Director and Director of Program, Centre forStrategic Studies, New Zealand
Mr. Cai Wei
Deputy Director General, Department of North American and Oceanian Affairs,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China
Mr. Cai Wei began his presentation by introducing the historic meeting between
Chinese President Xi Jinping and American President Barack Obama in 2013. The
most important outcome of the meeting is that the two countries reached a strategic
and constructive agreement on the building of a new model of major-country
relationship. He explained the essential features of this model which include “noconflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”. Mr. Cai further
specified the essential features that no conflict and no confrontation should be the4baseline. China and the United States should recognize that it is unimaginable for thetwo countries to have a war or conflicts. The past tragedy in the major countries’
relationship shall not be repeated again in the future and the two countries shall live inpeace and collaboration no matter what happens. Mutual respect should be the basic
guiding principle. The fundamental national interest and concerns of the other sideshould be respected. Between China and the United States, there are great differencesin their political and social system, history, culture and tradition, and the two countries
are also in different development stages. However, their consensus should be
increased by thinking and expanding common ground and hearing and learning fromeach other. Win-win cooperation should be the common objective for the relationshipamong major countries. Both countries should discard zero-sum concepts in pursuing
one’s national interests and development.
Mr. Cai continued his presentation by talking about how to put a new model of the
major countries’ relationship into reality. Facts have shown repeatedly thatdevelopment for emerging countries is the great blessing that significantly enlarges
the rooms of development and makes it possible for the developed countries to strive
and grow. Developed countries should see the rise of the emerging countries as great
historic opportunities and take emerging countries as equal partners, respect andwelcome them into the global governance. Differences between the U.S. and China
will not disappear overnight, or disappear over one visit, or just because we want tobuild a new model relationship. The key lies in truly respect of the other side’s coreinterests and major concerns, managing their differences through constructive
dialogue and consultation. The two countries, to have a sound new type relationship,should take concrete actions in their cooperation. China and the U.S. should maintainand strengthen their cooperation and coordination on regional and global issues.
Finally Mr. Cai pointed out that Asia Pacific is a region where China and the U.S.
have the greatest converging interests and most frequent interactions. Therefore theregion provides an ideal testing ground for building the new type of relationshipbetween China and the U.S. China welcomes the constructive role of the US in thisregion and stands ready to engage in more positive interaction with U.S. in theirconcerted contribution to peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia- Pacific region.
Mr. Michael Shiffer
Senior Adviser and Counselor,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Mr. Michael Shiffer presented his views on the topic by saying that the term “newpower relationship” is a wonderful aspiration that the two countries can work together
to build a mutual cooperative, prosperous and secure regional and global order. But
the question remains: how to add content and turn this notion into a viable strategic
concept? A lot of work lies before us in defining what this new type of major power
relationship is all about. Mr. Shiffer highlighted characteristics and pathways of a new5

power relationship. He offered, first of all, that a new type of major power
relationship needs to recognize that old zero-sum concepts simply no longer work,
given the realities of the 21st century. Secondly, to make a non-zero world a reality,
major powers need to align to create appropriate, legitimate multi-lateral institutions
and mechanisms to legitimately arbitrate and resolve their legitimate interests. A
rules-based order with a common operating system governed by and embedded innorms and institutions and rules with major powers responsible for supplying public
goods for the region and the globe perhaps starts to get somewhere along the road towhat a new type of major power relationship might look like.
Mr. Shiffer went further to talk about four possible pathways forward. He said the firstpathway is words and deeds need to match, especially in the early days of the project.
To offer rhetoric about a new type of relationship while at the same time pursing old
types of policy and action is counterproductive. The second valuable pathway Mr.
Shiffer suggested is to build a new type of major-country relationship in an
evolutionary way on existing mechanisms. The U.S. and China have the strategic
security dialogue at the SNED that allows the two countries to address some of themost sensitive issues in the bilateral relationship. For the region, we have theemergence of an open and inclusive problem-solving architecture including the ARF,
the ADMM and TPP. The third pathway is to make sure we have durable and usable
crisis management mechanisms in place to help us navigate the current of uncertainty,
especially in the military to military sphere. Lastly, all of us must and be willing toshed old and outdated conceptual categories and try to put ourselves in the minds ofthe other. If we remain persistently in one’s own mindsets and approaches, it will bevery difficult to establish a new type relationship.
Professor Jusuf Wanandi
Vice Chair, Board of trustees, Centre for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS) Foundation, Indonesia
Professor Jusuf Wanandi highlighted his perspectives on the strategic development in
the Asia-Pacific region. East Asia economically will become the most important partof the globe due to the rise of East Asian economies via China. China is becoming a
big power who aims at a peaceful rise and would like to leave behind the cold-war
confrontation between the big powers. That will depend on two things mainly: One is
the relationship between the two big powers which constitutes critical part of thedevelopment of a peaceful Asia-Pacific region in the future; and second is the
dynamics as well as the importance of regional economic and security institutions. It
is not yet there, but it is developing very fast. Both China and the United States should
understand that for TPP and RCEP to be able to merge is very critical for the region
because only then it has its impact for the region dramatically. However, there is along way to go. In the security field, China is to propose a community of interests,
and China’s neighborhood plays very important role in building such a community ofinterest. In this respect, Professor Wanandi thought that efforts should be made6

concerning the solution, or to have a meeting of minds, as well as some institutions
and regulations of the South China Sea. Right now there are more discussions among
Asian countries on more cooperation in the implementation of the Declaration of
Cooperation (DOC). At the same time, the formulation of the Code of Conduct (COC)
now is being done together by Asian countries and China. China’s increased
assertiveness on the SCS issue over the past two years and more have made theASEAN countries feel worried. But China’s new policies concerning its neighborhoodand the policy implementation is the best time because of this China-ASEAN
relationship is so important.
Professor Wanandi shared his views on regional powers. He talked about his worry of
the U.S. for its in-depth political divide although the survival of the American
political system is always there. China, as shown in its latest third Plenary Session, is
preparing herself through reforms to have more development in the future, and a
successful China will be for the good of the region. Since it is difficult to makepredictions on China, people in the region have to rely on institutions to establish
cooperation through discussions and dialogues. ASEAN alone cannot do this. We
need all the big powers’ involvement. Professor Wanandi expressed his hope thatJapan and its leadership will restore the country’s economic development and strength
because the region needs her. However, the statements of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
and his willingness to entertain the revisionist ideas of World War II make theSoutheast Asian countries worried because this part of the region feels safe with thestatements of Murayama and Kono and reshaping that again is a mistake. Professor
Wanandi hoped that Japan will see that and he thought that is why the regional
institution plays a very important part in maintaining the dynamics of the region.
Professor Wanandi concluded his remarks by hoping that the United States will bepart of this region, yet the United States has to take care of herself before she canfulfill her expected role in this part of the world.
Mr. John Guinn
Assistant Secretary, Strategic and Intelligence Branch of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia
Mr. John Quinn started his presentation by saying that all the countries in the region
including Australia have a huge stake in the region’s prosperity and stability. The
regional security depends on major power relationships. In addition to US-China
relationship clearly being the critical driver, there are also other important
relationships. Japan is a critical player, and the China-Japan-ROK relationship, thoughvery complex, is really critical to the future. India, a rising power, is playing more of arole in East Asia which is a welcome development, and Southeast Asia is aremarkable success story and has become a major player. Clearly the challenge for us
is how to manage these multi-faceted bilateral relationships which are clearly
characterized by strong common interests and interdependencies but also competitiveelements. The imperative is to focus on the shared interests, the interdependencies and7the need for deft and enlightened leadership on the part of the major powers, as wellas proactive diplomacy, on importance of crisis management and transparency.
Mr. John Quinn underlined in particular the role played by the middle and smaller
countries in regional security since we cannot just rely on major powers to get the job
done. It is important that middle and other powers have the opportunity and the
responsibility to seek to influence constructively in global and regional developments.
The middle and smaller countries need to be engaging with the major powers andmake their views known because they have a huge stake in how the major countries
conduct their bilateral relationships. Efforts are often made through coalitions,regional institutions and multilateral institutions. Major powers need to be listening to
the middle and smaller powers who have to speak up respectively and constructively.
Mr. John Quinn acknowledged it as good news that US-China relationship is the
major driver in the region, and both sides invest heavily in that relationship. They
engage in some sixty bilateral dialogues on major economic and strategic issues, inparticular dealing with hard issues. The U.S. and China now have a cyber dialogue
and it is hoped the two countries will move to the direction of an agreement on
confidence-building. This relationship has proved remarkably resilient andconstructive over many years, again driven by economic interdependence and strong
incentive to work together for the common interests. The United States will remain
the global superpower for the foreseeable future. Its alliances and partnerships in theregion have underlined strategic stability. Although it has significant fiscal andeconomic challenges, the US capacity for renewal should never be underestimated.
The U.S. has a huge stake in this region so it stays on in the region which Mr. John
Quinn thought is a good development. Similarly we all want to benefit from China’s
continuing rise, and we are firmly committed to engage China and talk to China on all
the big issues because China is a fundamentally important player.
In conclusion, Mr. John Quinn touched on important role of regional architecture inmanaging new major powers’ relations in the region. On a rules-based structure it isreally important that major powers engage in these processes. He mentioned
important structures like the East Asia Summit, and thought that EAS is a key
institution having the major powers around the table with the U.S. and Russia joining
fairly recently. EAS has the right agenda, and it has the potential not only to address
political and security issues but also helps deepen regional financial and economic
integration. ARF does very important work in areas of cyber and space security andhas critical engagement with major powers. ADMM Plus is really vital to make major
players stay engaged in these processes. The middle and smaller powers need to be
urging major powers to engage seriously in these processes on the basis of arules-structured regional architecture.
During the question and answer time, a question was raised concerning the possibilityof forming a league in East Asia led by other major countries in case when there is no8

confidence over new type of major country relationship. Professor Wanandi said that
China and the United States are working on the building of a new type of relations
with both improvement and setbacks. The middle and smaller countries also have a
supporting role to play and, through regional institutions, their role will be more
effective. Mr. John Quinn thinks that there are more major powers emerging in theworld. Any issue comes up, such as environmental issue and economic integration, we
need to be talking as middle powers. Middle powers need to be more active
diplomatically, and they have particular responsibility to engage the major powers in a
multi-polar world. Mr. Michael Shiffer thought that in a non-zero-sum regional or
global order, middle powers and small powers are not subjects of great powers ingreat-power games. They have an important role to play in determining regional
norms and rules as well as institutions. Middle powers play important part in
supplying public goods even if they are not able to play simultaneously across every
dimension of the game. Mr. Cai Wei said that China and the U.S. are working on
building their bilateral relations while they welcome more cooperation, interaction
and inputs from all middle and small powers. And the two countries are willing toengage with more middle and small powers in the building of new model ofrelationship.
On the question of different approaches of China and the United States in dealing withinternational relations, Mr. Cai Wei thought that China and US are so different inhistory, tradition, culture and political systems that it is only natural that Chinaemphasizes mutual respect in order to avoid the historical lessons. So long as weappreciate there is a big difference between the two countries, we can find a way tomanage or resolve those differences or potential conflicts. The most important is tounderstand and to respect the other side and don’t let the differences disturb the
picture of cooperation and collaboration. China and the United States are in theprocess of building a new type of relations which is not equal to G2. To build thisrelationship of win-win cooperation, more inputs from all countries, and different
voices and advices from friends of middle and small countries are most welcomed.
Mr. Michael Shiffer elaborated his remarks on crisis management and mechanisms.
Given the scale of redistribution and diffusion of power in the region over the past
decades, China and the United States, and also other powers, are rubbing up against
each other with increased frequency primarily in military security sphere. This leads
to possibilities of incidents, accidents, miscalculation, and misunderstanding whichshould be managed given the huge strategic implications. The leadership from boththe U.S. and China would feel confident that mechanisms would provide
communication and would contain crisis. Over the past several years, some of themechanisms are already there for various militaries in the region, so the leaders in theregion feel confident that they can contain and control unintended incidents.
Mr. John Quinn, in answering the question on Indo-Pacific, emphasized that it is an
emerging strategic concept which focuses very much on economic integration
9

dimension and strategic sea lines and other communication links. The Indo-Pacific arc
runs from South Asia through Southeast Asia to East Asia including the U.S. as amajor regional player. Australia, as an Indian Ocean and Pacific nation, is interested inbroader issues in Indian Ocean cooperation like in particular fishing andenvironmental cooperation.
Session Two
Fulfilling the Promise of Regional Security Architecture
Chair: Ms. Clara Dyah Vidyarini Jeowono,Vice Chair,
Board of Director of CSIS Foundation, CSIS Indonesia
Professor Tsutomu Kikuchi
Adjunct Fellow, Japan Institute of International Affairs, Japan
Professor Tsutomu Kikuchi focused his presentation on current situation in regional
security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region. He thought that over the past fifteen or
twenty years, a variety of overlapping economic and security institutions have been
established in the region. The proliferation of these overlapping regional institutions
defects the strategies taken by the countries to respond to increased insecurity anduncertainty. The Asia-Pacific region is confronted with changes and challenges, suchas increased economic interdependence intertwined with economic competition; thefuture relations of big powers remain uncertain and unpredictable because of their
deep mutual distrust. In the face of regional changes and challenges, Asian countries
are engaged in complicated and competitive institutional building to response touncertain and unpredictable situation in the regions, and at the same time to balanceboth the established and rising powers. Professor Kikuchi assumed the institutional
convergence will not take place in the foreseeable future. Asia-Pacific region willcontinue to have a variety of overlapping regional institutions, because the Asian
countries wish to have multiple choices instead of making any commitment to a single
institution. The conclusion of many bilateral free trade arrangements is on the rise.
Through regional institutions, Asian countries can cooperate in some areas. Yet
institutional outlook of these regional institutions will continue to be modest. The
possibility for Asia to develop strong and effective regional institutions will be small
given the fact of uncertain landscape in Asia. However TPP is an exception. TPP, if
agreed between the U.S. and Japan on highest standards, will have a huge impact onregional political securities. Although the regional institutions in Asia continue to be
weak and not producing tangible results, yet, instead of being talk shop, they areplaying quite important role, especially playing a role of moderators in inter-statetension and conflicts.
Professor Kikuchi continued to focus on ASEAN by saying that the institutions in
Asia cannot go beyond ASEAN at least for the moment because of important role
ASEAN is playing in the current institutional structure of Asia. ASEAN political andsecurity community will be strengthened and enhanced by adopting more rules andnorms. A strengthened ASEAN leads to enhanced regional institutional-building in
10

Asia. The East Asia Summit formula (EAS) and its linkage with ADMM Plus andARF should be strengthened. In conclusion Professor Kikuchi said that regional
institutions need to be strengthened to address economic and security issues, but in theforeseeable future network of alliances are critically important bedrock for regional
peace and stabilities.
Commondore Uday Bhaskar (Ret.)
Visiting Fellow, National Maritime Foundation, India
Commondore Uday Bhaskar (Ret.) begins his presentation by talking about his
experiences with turbulent CSCAP meetings in the earlier days and thought that thiscan serve as an indication of how far we have come in terms of creating the feeling ofcommunity and family. Then Commondore Uday Bhaskar touched on the concept of
security. He thought the big shift is that the region is no longer exclusive as it was
during the Cold War and it is no longer uni-dimentional. We have to recognize:
security is indivisible and is inclusive in nature; and today in the 21st century, regions
are no longer exclusive.
Commondore Uday Bhaskar turned to focus on regional security architecture. He
thought that the multiplicity is one of the features for regional security architecture.
If there is a need to have an approach to security, the ASEAN Regional Forum is away. ARF was formed after CSCAP in 1994. Since then there are follow-up
mechanisms like the East Asia Summit in 2005, ADMM plus in 2006 and the
Six-Party Talks in 2003 dealing with contentious WMD related issues. Now there is
the Expended ASEAN Maritime Forum. The review of the Regional Security
Architecture, a progress achieved by one of many CSCAP study groups, would be avery valuable starting point. CSCAP makes contributions, firstly by being able tocontribute to discourse, and secondly by picking up specific issues and making themmore manageable. Since RSA is one of the areas where CSCAP has had some limited
success with an objective review, then more follow-up investments are needed.
Commondore Uday Bhaskar proposed deliberations on another issue, Humanitarian
Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR), on this area the Expanded ASEAN Maritime
Forum should focus. HADR and other related apolitical issues should be discussed as
the first stepping stone.
Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan
Chairman, Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia
Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan focused his perspectives, through the presentation,
on regional security arrangements. Firstly the bilateral arrangements are the mostimportant for the management of security in the Asia Pacific region. The bilateralrelations, especially in the ASEAN, are very successful especially in the Southeast
Asia region between various neighbors. Through bilateral arrangements for security,
11

there are neither avoidance of issues nor potential conflicts. By working together, lotsof things have been settled instead of going to the ICJ. Secondly, the formation of
ASEAN in 1967 was a game changer for the region, because ASEAN focuses oncommon security, cooperative security and mutually shared interests. ASEAN works
beyond narrow security and conventional security bounds, and extends into politicaland economic fields on building common prosperity in this region. ASEAN is also agame changer in another sense by triggering more Asia-Pacific mechanisms forregional security cooperation, such as ARF, ASEAN+3, ADMM, and ADMM plus.
Despite of all the limitations, ASEAN has fulfilled its promises well beyond its
founders’ wide imagination.
ASEAN, through ecosystem, has enabled member countries to be strengthened andempowered those smaller countries to engage with larger actors in the international
affairs. This is a very important contribution of the ASEAN. Hard efforts must be
made for an ASEAN community by the year 2050. Although ASEAN’s link with ARF
is concerned weak, it is the most necessary link in the security architecture in theregion.
Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan talked on the military alliance in the region. He
thought the US presence and its strategic partnership in the region have been usefuland beneficial especially for the parties concerned. However, for the region as a whole,
the military alliance has counter-productive effect, because it is inherently conflictualin nature and it is dividing the region.
Finally Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan came to interdependence. He thought in theregion the geopolitics has not kept up with the geo-economics because thegeo-economics bring and pull the countries together while geopolitics is still taking us
apart. Many of us are still in the old mode, and have not come to the fact of moreinterdependence, with shared economic interests and prosperity, and shared security
interests. Priority must be given to the management of territorial disputes, notnecessarily the settlement of them. So both the COC the DOC are very important. And
the exclusive and antagonistic alliances should be transformed slowly into more
inclusive alliances by engaging more countries in the region.
Dr. Victor Sumsky
Director, ASEAN Centre in MGIMO University, Russia
Dr. Victor Sumsky highlighted in his presentation Russia’s East Asian Security
Initiative as a successful exercise for constructing a new regime of security
architecture. During the East Asia Summit in Brunei, Russia came forward with aproposal to start a discussion on framework principles of regional security
architecture in East Asia, emphasizing that this is a starting point which may
eventually in the distant future lead to a conclusion of a regional treaty on security inEast Asia. The proposal covers well-known principles and perspectives of sovereignty,
12peaceful solution of disputes, not use of force or threaten to use force in international
relations, security based on mutual equality and not on blocks, and security should not
be achieved at the expense of a certain partner.
Dr. Victor Sumsky pointed out that a popular opinion is to think that growing
economic interdependence will solve security problems, and will automatically leadto more stability and peace; another view is that traditional security issues will neveragain become as important as in the Cold War era, and new non-traditional security
issues are coming to be prominent and become primary concerns. That is the reason
for the setting-up of ARF in 1994; finally some people holding less euphoric views
think that with the end of bi-polar competition and the melting of the Cold-War ice,
there comes the reemergence of smaller conflicts. Dr. Victor Sumsky held the viewthat traditional security issues are never going away as long as the international
relations are there. One of the major paradox today is more interdependence, moreglobalization, and stronger nationalism in the region. The region can be driven by
economic successes, it also can be driven by lack of economic successes. Traditional
security issues are back as major regional theme. Classic international laws should be
used as tools to confront traditional security issues and to solve problems of peace andwar. However, now in the early 21st century the international laws have been watereddown by interventionism in the world. In conclusion, Dr. Victor Sumsky said thatgoing back to the basics of international laws is the intention for Russia to put forward
the East Asia Security Initiative and the proposal serves as an example and exercises
in preventive diplomacy.
During the Q & A time, questions and observations are raised concerning bilateralarrangements, impacts on ASEAN centrality by Russian proposed framework
principles, ASEAN’s leading role in the building of regional architecture and on
security model. Tan Sri Mohamed Jawhar Hassan said the bilateral arrangements for
managing conflicts between neighbors have been most effective and productive inproviding security to the countries in the region, although it is not perfect and it does
not provide all the public goods, since there are continuing problems. If conflicts
cannot be resolved, there is also another avenue to go, that is the ICJ. This is theevidence of maturity of bilateral cooperation where both sides can agree to the ICJ
and accept the outcome. The same does not apply to other regions, certainly not to
Northeast Asia which has all the historical wounds which have not been properly
addressed and the rising nationalism. As for military alliances, they are performing as
negative security insurance. They may meet the narrow security needs of the parties
concerned, but they may not yield public goods for the region as a whole. And what is
the worst is that military alliances may lead to the establishment by the other side ofmilitary alliances. So we should work for the inclusiveness, and to include as many as
possible other countries in expanding military alliance.

13Dr. Victor Sumsky elaborated that all the principles are based on the Bali principles aswell as the UN Charter, from the experiences of constructing the collective security
system in Europe, and also from the principles of indivisible security. Dr. Victor
Sumsky did not think all the principles in Russia’s initiative infringe upon ASEAN
centrality. ASEAN is facing incredible tough tasks, but ASEAN is doing pretty well interms of regional integration. Asian countries should have their integration in theirown way.
Dr. Tsutomu Kikuchi pointed out that the major powers’ relations is getting tense, andthis relationship will continue to be competitive and confrontational while at the sametime there are cooperation among major powers. ASEAN leaders will face afundamental task of managing their relations with major powers. Association of small
or medium sized countries can play important and constructive role in the fussy
situation among big powers. ASEAN has to overcome difficulties and keep its
important independent role in the newly emerging competitive security environment
in Asia. Touching on the US-centered security network, Dr. Kikuchi thought that thebilateral alliance centered on the United States can provide security public goods
almost to all the nations. Because of changing relations among the countries as well as
the economic relations, additional layers of framework are needed to further addresspressing issues and efforts should be made to further develop region-wide institutionalarrangement. However, the role of regional institution would be important but limited.
In the future, regional architecture in Asia Pacific will be multi-layered with the
US-based alliances as bedrocks. Without the US-centered security network as
bedrocks, Asia cannot enjoy any economic growth in the coming decades. In theforeseeable future, no big and strong regional or sub-regional institutions will beformed in the region which can address security and economic issues.
Commodore Uday Bhaskar responded to some of the observations by touching on
legitimate arbitration which leads, first of all, to consensus about the nature ofinterests, and secondly depends on degree of faith or trust in the external body. As fora security model, he thought it has to be equitable, sustainable, and harmonious. The
European model can be used as a reference, and Asia needs to develop its own
security mechanism. Asia is still at the early stage to find its own regional architecture
consensus as ASEAN and ARF are the first attempt to be consolidated. ASEAN-ledregional security architecture can be the first model.
Luncheon Speech
H.E. Mr. Liu Zhenmin
Vice Foreign Minister, China
H.E. Mr. Liu Zhenmin, Vice Foreign Minister of China, graced the conference bydelivering a luncheon speech on the “Evolving Security Situation in Asia and the Roleof China”. The following is the summary of the speech.
14

Asia has largely maintained peace and stability for decades after the Cold War. Thishas served as a solid basis for Asia to focus on economic development.
Asia is seeing new progress in regional cooperation. However, Asia is still faced withmany security challenges. Legacies of the Second World War and the Cold War, andterritorial and maritime disputes continue to affect Asian security. There are also
growing non-traditional security challenges, such as natural disasters, transnational
crimes, cyber security, energy and food security. In addition, there are still attempts in
our region to seek absolute security through strengthening military alliances. The trust
deficit between some countries remains large. Only with openness, inclusiveness,mutual respect and cooperation can countries achieve security and development, andcreate a harmonious environment for regional security.
H.E. Mr. Liu said that China does not believe in the old security concept based on
zero-sum game, military hegemony and power politics. China put forward a conceptof New Approach to Security in the 1990s, which are based on mutual trust, mutual
benefit, equality and collaboration. This can be called the 3C security approach,namely comprehensive security, cooperative security and common security.
To maintain and promote security in Asia, we should promote regional economic
integration as the foundation for Asian security; keep good relations among majorcountries, make good use of existing regional mechanisms; and foster new security
architecture.
China still sees itself as a developing country. For many years to come, the issue atthe very top of China’s policy agenda remains achieving its own development. Our
focus will be on implementing the program of reform, opening-up and development
drawn up at the recent 3rd Plenum of the 18th CPC Central Committee, to build amoderately prosperous society for 1.3 billion Chinese people.
China has achieved development under the current international order. To keep theorder stable, and renew and reform it gradually serves China's interests as well as
those of other stakeholders in the region.
To describe China's neighboring policy, President Xi Jinping used four phrases:
closeness, sincerity, sharing in prosperity, and accepting differences, or inclusiveness.
He reiterated that China remains committed to developing friendship and partnerships
with its neighbors. China's development will bring more benefit to our neighbors.
This year, China proposed many new proposals on cooperation projects with ourneighbors, such as the Silk Road Economic Belt, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road,
the establishment of an Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the China-ASEAN
community of common destiny, the 2+7 cooperation framework to enhance China
ASEAN strategic partnership, etc.
15

China is firmly committed to building a new type of major country relationship.
Naturally, such a new type of relationship will not be plain sailing. We owe it toourselves and to the region to avoid the historical trap of major power conflict.
China will continue to firmly support ASEAN community building and ASEAN
centrality in regional cooperation. China is the first outside country to sign the Treatyof Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and the first major country to establish a
strategic partnership with ASEAN. China will continue to properly handle disputes
over territory and maritime rights and interests. China and ASEAN countries aremaking joint efforts to implement the DOC comprehensively and effectively and will
push forward COC discussions in a positive and prudent manner.
H.E. Mr. Liu said that China stands for shelving disputes and seeking joint
development. China has reached initial understanding on joint development withsome countries. On issues of territorial sovereignty and maritime interests, China does
not believe in provoking others. Nor would we allow provocation against China’s
principles and bottom line.
On the issue of Diaoyu Islands, China’s activities in the area is the legitimate exercise
of its jurisdiction on these islands and should not be seen as an attempt to change thestatus quo. China's establishment of the Air Defense Identification Zone in the East
China Sea is consistent with international law and international practice. More than 20
countries including the United States and Japan have established their own ADIZs
since the 1950s. As for the issue of aviation safety in the overlapping areas, China andJapan can and should strengthen dialogue and communication to ensure aviation
safety and avoid accidents. China hopes that relevant countries will not read too muchand not overreact to China’s ADIZ in the East China Sea.
China will continue to work for the solution of hotspot issues in Asia. China will
firmly push forward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We sincerely hopethat the relevant parties will move in the same direction and make effort to resume theSix Party Talks to bring the issue back to the track of negotiations.
In conclusion, H.E. Mr. Liu expressed his hope that CSCAP, as an influential thinktank on security in the Asia-Pacific, will continue to approach security issues in Asiawith open and creative thinking, and provide more ideas and support to regional
security cooperation.
After his remarks, H.E. Mr. Liu answered questions from the audience. On the issueof building a new security architecture, H.E. Mr. Liu responded that although we have
ARF with ASEAN centrality, ARF still remains a forum. Asia is short of a security
architecture which is inclusive and supported by all parties. In the future, the role of
ARF need to be further strengthened, and all parties should make good use of this16

platform, increase trust and reduce differences. For the time being, the main functions
for ARF are to increase mutual trust and conduct preventive diplomacy while thediversity of Asian countries, as well as the interests of other major countries in Asia
should be taken into consideration. H.E. Mr. Liu believed that a gradual process
should be taken to build an Asian security architecture, and work can be started at
sub-regional level, and gradually put in place a security architecture that covered all
the Asian region.
On international and regional order, H.E. Mr. Liu responded that the overall
international situation has not seen any fundamental change since the establishment ofU.N., and the collective security system, the trading system, and the financial systemestablished on the basis of the U.N. are still valid. Of course, the existing international
order can no longer satisfy the needs of the 193 UN members. However we cannot
deny the existing international order, we can only reform it gradually. China is
supportive of the UN reform, and believes that the reform should be advanced on thebasis of equality and sovereignty. The result of the reform should better reflect thereality of the international situation.
On the issue of absolute security, H.E. Mr. Liu responded that some countries stillwant to achieve absolute security, and military alliances remain a reality in Asia.
Some countries both outside and inside of this region still give supports to military
alliance. However, China believes that military alliance is outdated and will not suitthe new type of state relations. As early as the 1990s, China proposed a new security
concept, and since then China has been working to advance the concept. We believe it
is important for major countries to shape a new model of relationship, and Asian
countries need to build a state-to-state relationship based on equality, mutual support,
and win-win cooperation. China has confidence in the future of Asia, and is confident
in the maintenance of peace and stability in Asia.
Session Three
Overcoming Current Obstacles for Peace and Stability in Northeast Asia
Chair: Major General QIAN Lihua, Vice Chair, CSCAP China
Mr. Jong Chol Nam, Institute for Disarmament and Peace
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Mr. Jong Chol Nam focused his presentation on the issue on the Korean peninsula. He
argued since the end of the cold war there are many important changes in worldpolitics, which affect the strategic importance of the region in the Northeast Asia. He
reviewed the situation after the Cold War, and held the view that the strengthened US,
Japan, and South Korea military relations accelerated the move to form the triangularmilitary alliance. It will be a great danger to the security balance in the region of theNortheast Asia. On the other hand there is an increase of danger of nuclear war on the
Korean peninsula. There isn’t a mechanism to stop the military conflicts in any case.
The DPRK has to pursue self-defense. He went on with the ways to overcome the17current fragile situation in the region. Firstly, US should put an immediate stop to
joint military exercises. Secondly, it is important to abolish the UN command, which
would prove the US willingness to withdraw its hostile policy to DPRK. Thirdly, thenuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula has to be solved on the basis of the principle ofsimultaneous actions. And finally, the joint declarations between the North and theSouth should be implemented.
Mr. Ralph A. Cossa
President, Pacific Forum CSIS, USA
Mr. Ralph. A. Cossa talked mainly on three subjects, the North Korean nuclear
weapons program, North Korea’s hostile attitude towards South Korea and the current
trust deficit, the territorial disputes which were not being managed well at the present
time in Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, and history issues which kept coming up.
On territorial disputes, he held that the main problem today is refusal to seek outside
mediation. There are vehicles in existence. If people are that convinced that theirclaims are legitimate, they can go to the International Court of Justice like they can goto other outside mediators. On the case of China-Japan territorial disputes, they may
learn from the model of Russia and Japan. A current bargain is possible if Japan
would acknowledge that the islands are disputed from a Chinese perspective andChina would acknowledge that the islands are currently under Japan’s administrative
control and act accordingly. On history issues, Mr. Ralph Cossa held that Prime
Minister Abe should play the history card，which is the history of Japan at the second
half of the twenties century. China and South Korea need to acknowledge that Japanhas played as a lead goose in the 1980s and 1990s, making the economic miracles forboth China and Korea possible.
On North Korea and its nuclear weapons program, Mr. Ralph Cossa explained theneed to take a fresh approach to what’s happening. There are very few problems in theworld that the U.S. is not capable of handling without using nuclear weapons. And theonly reason nuclear weapons come to play on the Korean Peninsula is because the
DPRK had threaten to use them. On the need for a peace treaty, Mr. Cossa said the US
is committed to that in 1989 when the U.S. established with China and the ROK the
Six Party Talks. The DPRK walked away from those agreements because it refused tosign an agreement with the ROK. The problem is the DPRK’s refusal to acknowledge
the existence and legitimacy of the government in South Korea. Any time if the twowant to sit down developing a peace mechanism, they will find the United States andChina fully prepared to support that but again the ball here was in the DPRK’s court.
Professor Takagi Seiichiro
Senior Associate Fellow of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Japan
Professor Takagi Seiichiro elaborated his perspectives concerning the settlement ofhistory problems among Asian countries. He said that the tendency of whatever one
18

side claims to be true should be accepted, and whatever settlement one side demandshould be accepted by the other” should be overcome by seeking truth from facts.
Study of history is a serious matter, and it’s not a game to be played among politicians
or among people of the countries. We should study history to take lessons from thepast, to understand how our society has evolved and how it is likely to develop in the
future. However, nowadays people of Japan, China and Korea are influenced bycommercialized newspapers and television and increasingly by internet
communication. It is a very unproductive way to handle history. We should avoid
over-reliance on symbolism and focus on substance. When Japanese political leader
visited the Yasukuni Shrine, people get upset, but in fact, the politicians are notpraying for the revival of Japanese militarism or trying to create an atmosphere andplanning to make Japan into strong and militarized nation. We should distinguishedsymbolism from reality. Subjective scholarly research is the best way to handle
history issues rather than put it in the political realm. A serious attitude on history
issues would produce maybe not the total agreement in history but more productive
atmosphere with regard to history.
Professor Jaewoo Choo, Department of Chinese Language, Kyung Hee
University, Republic of Korea
Prof. Jaewoo Choo presented his views on the new type of great power relations
between the U.S. and China, as well as regional security architecture. The
fundamental challenge to regional security lies in the relationship between the U.S.
and China, since they have different perspectives, outlooks, and perceptions on how
the security architecture should be built in this region. The U.S. and China are both
looking ahead but taking different approaches. The seed of distrust of China and the
U.S. lies in the following aspects: China has a historical phobia of encirclement. In
contemporary terms, the US alliance-building in Southeast Asia, USSR’s expansion in
Vietnam, Mongolia, and Afghanistan, US unsuccessful expedition into Central Asiaand its strategic rebalancing strategy with allies are all causes of distrust. China isconcerned that America constrains or even upsets China's rise. The intentions of US
rebalancing strategy remain unclear. The U.S. is concerned about China’s long-termzero-sum game thinking; China’s mercantilist policies, China’s one-Party politicalsystem, China, no longer a developing country, will assume a more hegemonic,
assertive and active approach, and PLA weapons modernization targeting at America.
The U.S. and China has no common denominator on regional architecture. China
wants common development, harmonious world, peace and development, cooperation,
multilateralism, open regionalism, respect diversity, ASEAN-centered regional order,
inclusive membership and common interest and new security concept. The U.S. wants
preservation of primacy, value-based order, democracy, freedom, market economy,
bilateral alliance, alliance based regionalism, shared values, commitment andinternational law, allies-centered regional order, exclusive membership, and US
leadership. To conclude, China and the US will find it difficult to build a groundwhere they can converge, unless the seed of distrust is completely exhumed. For the19

time being, “Common interest,” would not be the answer, since interests out of theboundary estrange them. Regional states are compelled to choose side. It is a big
obstacle for peace and stability in the region.
Professor Georgy Toloraya
Head of Regional Projects Department, Russkiy mir Foundation
RussiaProfessor Georgy Toloraya presented his views on security and cooperation of Russia
and Northeast Asia. He stated that this is a stable but very tense region, and challenges
include territorial conflicts, historical tensions, differences in economic development,
military alliances, as well as non-traditional threats. Possible solutions may include
bilateral diplomacy, multilateral security groups (Six-Party Talks), avoidance ofdivision lines, track II and humanitarian exchanges, network diplomacy, and energy
and logistic bridges. He suggested that the Six-Party Talks should be restarted without
preconditions. Work must be done for the improvement of Korea-Japan and
China-Japan relations, hostile propaganda must be checked up, and multilateralprojects promoted. He then offered some proposals for a new security system in
Korea. Since strictly bilateral agreements on Korea do not work, a durable peace
regime should be a multilateral construction - both Koreas, China, USA, Japan andRussia. A set of bilateral treaties on security arrangements on the Korean Peninsulaamong all participants of the multilateral diplomatic process should be signed. Eachcountry signs legally-binding agreements with the five other members. Unified
understanding of the peace regime and verification mechanisms should be achieved.
Basic principles of bilateral relations, implementation of the UN Charter principles in
Korea, and military-political arrangements including armament sphere, should be
adhered to. The vital part lies in nuclear armament, missiles and other WMD issues,
as well as strategic conventional arms, creation of verification regimes. This security
system will give possibility to control the implementation of agreements by all otherparticipants.
Dr. Ganbat Damba, Director of Institute for Strategic Studies of Mongolia
Dr. Ganbat Damba talked about Mongolian foreign policy in Northeast Asia,
especially the initiative of Ulan Bator Dialogue on the Northeast Asia Security. The
goals of the initiative are to continue to downgrade mistrust through negotiations, andto make efforts aimed at reaching a long-term goal of regional peace and setting up
mechanism of dialogue in Northeast Asia. The dialogues will be conducted with a
combination of “Track I” officials and unofficial “Track II” academia. Topics to be
discussed might include regional economic cooperation, military transparency,
environmental issues, non-traditional security threats, and regional stability. Principles
which should be abided by include respecting the opinions of other parties,
conducting full and thorough discussions, and holding meetings at both official andunofficial levels. The dialogue should be held on the basis of trust. At the initial stage,
20

parties to the dialogue should include the six countries in Northeast Asia. The
participation of other countries and entities should be discussed in an open andtransparent way step by step.

Question and Answer Session

On the issue of relations between China, Japan and South Korea, Mr. Cossa responded
that there is a need for great cooperation among the three countries, and dialogue isabsolutely necessary. There is no way to pursue a good neighbor policy if the leaders
would not sit and discuss. What really required is for the three leaders to sit down andtalk with one another, and the US could provide good offices. Prof. Jong responded
that President Pak has a trust policy, and the core idea behind is sincerity. One shouldmatch words with actions and use actions to prove it. Dr. Takagi Seiichiro responded
that, on the operation level, cooperation between Japan and Korea is very good. The
problem is on the political side and maybe public opinions too. This is why politicalleadership is important. Both Japan and Korea are allies of the United States, so it isnatural for them to have better communication and have productive cooperation.
On the efficacy and usefulness of the current sanction regimes against the DPRK, Prof.
Toloraya maintained that sanctions are in failure. Some other engagement ways
should be found rather than sanction and isolation against the DPRK. Mr. Cossa
responded that sanctions are useful, but if countries sign up for sanctions and do not
enforce them, they become useless. Sanctions fail to work because the DPRK
continues to get the technology and the equipment required to develop nuclear
weapons. It would be impossible for the US to lift the sanctions, since it seems like toreward the North Korea who has carried out uncooperative actions.
A Chinese scholar expressed the worries of Japan’s future political development andpointed out that the Chinese and Korean government’s request is very simple: theJapanese Prime Minister should refrain from visiting the Yasukuni Shrine in his
official capacity. However this very fundamental request had been kept being
challenged and being ignored by the Japanese government. How could Japan’s
neighboring countries really feel at ease about Japan’s future direction of possible
militarism.
One participant raised a question regarding military alliances in the Asia-Pacificregion. He believed that military alliance is a negative factor in maintaining peace andstability in the Asia-Pacific region. All of the US military alliances, including
US-Japan, US-South Korea, US-Philippines, were formed during the Cold War. After
more than twenty years, the US should loosen these alliances. However, on thecontrary, these alliances have been strengthened and consolidated. Mr. Cossa
responded that U.S. military alliances are positive forces for stability in the region.
21

The alliances provide a foundation upon which multilateral cooperation could be built.
He expressed his worries about the consequences of the lack of military alliances. If
the military alliance would be taken away, a couple of moral nuclear weapon states in
East Asia might emerge, which would not contribute to the security in the region .
Session Four
Building A Secure and Open Cyberspace through Cooperation
Chair: Mr. Ron Huisken, Associate Professor, Strategic and Defense Studies
Centre, Australian National University, Australia
Dr. Xu Longdi
China Institute of International Studies
Dr. Xu Longdi shared his views on China's policies and practices on Internet
development and cyber security. From the very beginning of its development, China’s
Internet has been closely linked to the Chinese economy, and is programmed andintegrated into its macro-economic development blueprints. In addition to lending fullpolicy support to Internet development, China also invests heavily on building
Internet infrastructures. The construction and improvement of Internet infrastructure
facilitates the spread and application of Internet. The Chinese Government actively
promotes the R&D of next-generation Internet (NGI). China practices a policy ofmanaging cyber affairs in line with law, adhering to the principles of scientific andeffective management in its Internet governance. He then went on with the challenges
facing China’s cyber security. China has been a major victim of cyber attacks, whichhave been increasing dramatically in recent years and fully demonstrated China’s
weaknesses in the realm of cyber security. Although China has made due progress
in its information and communication technologies (ICTs), yet as a late comer to thisfield, China still lags far behind other developed countries in a lot of areas.
China has the largest number of netizens in the world, many of them are just green
hands in access to ICTs, often without any awareness or sense of cyber security.
China is suffering from various cyber attacks in the real world as well as incyberspace. At present, a Chinese way of doing cyber security is in the making. It
further promotes international and bilateral cyber cooperation. The international
community is called on for making rules for cyberspace. In this process, all countries
are indispensable. As the Stuxnet worm against the Iranian nuclear facilities
demonstrated, cyber tools and weapons could lead to catastrophic scenarios. Building
technical capabilities and narrowing digital gaps are underway. Although the West,
particularly the United States, is keen on accusing China of the cyber attacks it
suffered, today the two countries share common interests in the face of common cybersecurity threats.
Mr. B.J. Srinath
Senior Scientist, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, India
22Mr. B.J.Srinath gave his views on cyber security saying that cyber security is a highly
complex issue. First, the trans-boundary nature of cyberspace security makes
arbitration very difficult. Second, state behavior in cyberspace is becoming extremely
important and the role of non-state actors also important. The key issues are cybercrime, cyber terrorism, critical infrastructure protection, cyber warfare, and the large
issue of ownership of Internet. The implications are that the norms of behavior are
becoming very important. The recent trends are that most countries have began toadopt national strategies, which are mixed with several things, for instance, buildingof the infrastructure, law enforcement, legal framework, and international cooperation,etc. The setup of NATO center of excellence is an effort to define terms in cyber space,and a good start. The difficulties are that there are no common agreements on
concepts or definition. Then the critical question is how to manage cyber security.
Should the content of cyber space be controlled? and how? He then introduced India's
cyber policies. India has recently come out with a very ambitious cyber security
policy which involves coordination among multiple agencies, and also appointment ofa cyber security coordinator. He also talked about the development of a large numberof cyber security experts in the country over the next few years. What are needed to
be done? The dialogue is very important. It is taking place but fragmented. We should
also take lessons from other fields. The question of definition of concept is important.
Whatever we develop, it should have a wider acceptance, and perhaps the UN should
be involved in this respect.
Dr. Amirudin Abdul Wahab
Chief Executive Officer, CyberSecurity of Malaysia
Dr. Amirudin Abdul Wahab stated that Malaysia recognizes the uprising cybersecurity threats and the potential to disrupt our society. Therefore, to build a safer
cyber space is very important. Hence there are demands on domestic and international
levels to protect our open cyber space, and it could be achieved through international
cooperation. The cyber crimes have increased with complexities. We are facing
threats posed by international crime organizations, using the Internet for illegal drugs,
human trafficking, financial fraud, money laundering, etc. These crimes are acrossborders and transnational. Malaysia also acknowledges cyber aggression conductedby nation states, and states sponsored non-state actors. It is believed that suchactivities are committed with diverse political and economic motives, in order toachieve dominance in cyber space. The recent Edward Snowden issue shows that suchspying activities have posed risks to national sovereignty. If it is not managed
properly by global community, it would heighten the tension of cyber security among
the nations. The exploitation of Internet has also created digital hacktivism. Such acts
could be seen as WMD in cyber space. If a nation is attacked, the damage could
spread to other countries. Cyber security cooperation among nations is of vital
importance to addressing cyber crimes in the region. Such cooperation may include
cooperation on programs in cyber security among member states, platforms for23

information exchange, and knowledge-sharing
engagement with other platforms, such as ARF.

opportunities,

andpossibleMs. Elaine Korzak,
Cyber Security Fellow, CISAC, Stanford University, USA
Ms. Elaine Korzak focused her presentation on the significance of rules and norms forbuilding a security open cyber space through cooperation. There is consensus on theneed of norms on cyber space, but the challenge is to agree on the exact type andcontent of those norms. When it comes to international legal regimes, there is a big
debate going on whether we should keep the existing international legal frameworks
or we should come up with new norms, or whether it should be a mix of both. By
reviewing UN resolutions and reports of groups of governmental experts, she pointed
out the applicability of existing legal frameworks. Then she recommended that the
future group of experts should not back track on the commitments they made in theirreport.
The next step should include the application of particular norms to figure out how thiswould translate into cyber space. And Ms. Korzak recommended to start with therelatively easy area of agreement and then to figure out real tough and controversial
issues. Track II discussions might be very helpful as a vehicle to move this discussion
forward, and a correct way to start Track II conversations is to broaden up expert
groups to have a truly equitable geographical distribution. She then pointed out thedanger of fragmentation. Although it is very helpful to stimulate discussions onregional level, we should be careful not to end up with regional regimes, norms, andideas that in the end may be counter-productive and even contradictory.
Mr. Kwa Chong Guan
Senior Fellow, S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore
Mr. Kwa Chong Guan focused his presentation on whether people should haveabsolute access to information through internet and on whether we should haveregulations. He stated that the growth complexity impact of the Internet on our lives
today challenges the call for the independence of cyber space. There are threelayers/domains of cyber space that needed some form of government orintergovernmental influence over the way that internet is governed. First is thephysical infrastructure foundation of the cyber space. Second is the logic components
which compose the infrastructure and the network. Third is the content through which
information flowed through the internet.
Dinner Speech
Lieutenant General REN HaiquanVice President of the Chinese Academy of Military Science24

Lieutenant General REN Haiquan made a dinner speech on China’s national defense
policy. The summary of the speech are as follows:
Today’s world is undergoing complex and profound changes. The Asia Pacific has
become the most dynamic region with greatest potential. The biggest concern for
China is stability and development in this region. China has been committed to a
defensive national defense policy as follows: China upholds national sovereignty,
security, territorial integrity, and protects China’s peace and development. China
wants to build a strong national defense force and a strong military, which isconsistent with China’s national status and meets the needs of China’s national
security and developments interests. China has been actively implementing aproactive defensive military strategy and committed to a self-defensive nuclear
strategy. And finally, China works hard to uphold world and regional peace andstability.
China’s defensive national defense policy has the following features: Firstly, It is
self-defensive in nature. China’s defensive national defense policy is based onresisting aggressions, and protecting the motherland and the peaceful work of thepeople. Secondly, we have an active defense policy, by which we mean that we adhere
to the principle featuring of defensive operations, and striking the enemy only after
the enemy has started the attack. We have been very prudent in the use of force, andwe will not be the first to create an incident. And lastly, it is a peaceful national
defense policy. We attach great importance to curbing crisis and wars together withother countries to create a good environment for common development.
The more we promote China’s reform, the more consistent we will be in practicing thedefensive national defense policy. China needs a peaceful and stable environment todeepen reform in a comprehensive manner. The successful experiences and practicesof reform both home and abroad told us that national security and social stability are
actually the preconditions for the smooth reform and development. To
comprehensively deepening reform will not be possible without the support andcooperation of the Asia-Pacific countries and it will not be possible without a goodinternal and external security environment. Military expansion does not serve thenational strategy of China’s peaceful development, thus it will never become an
option of China’s national defense policy.
In deepening China’s defense and military reform, China also aims to improve themilitary institution organization and structure, improve the relevant policies andsystems, and raise the capabilities of the military to discharge its missions and tasks inorder to provide a better support for the implementation of the defensive national
defense policy.

25

In expanding its opening up, China will seek to have better security cooperation with
Asia-Pacific countries so as to bring more benefit to the neighbors. In other words,
China’s opening wider to the outside world does not go against China’s practice of the
defensive national defense policy. The two things actually reinforce each other. We
will be more proactive in our participation in regional security cooperation, and wewill be more actively undertaking responsibilities as a major country by providing
more public common goods for the Asia-Pacific region and the international
community.

Question and Answer Session

On China’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), Gen. Ren responded that the
ADIZ is defensive in nature, and it is not to expand China’s territorial airspace. It is
not a unique thing practiced by China. There is not a unified international model for
the ADIZ implementation. As to whether we would establish ADIZs in other
territorial seas, it will be determined by our judgment of the international situation, as
well as the needs of China’s national security. The flight of the civil aircraft will bevery safe in the future in the ADIZ. We hope that the civilian aircrafts of othercountries could give early warnings report in advance as Chinese aircrafts did in other
ADIZs.
On China’s policy of non-first-use of nuclear weapons, Gen. Ren responded that thepolicy had never been changed. In the future, the first users of nuclear weapons will
be punished by history. Now that the U.S. is pursuing a strategy of rebalancing in Asia,
we should neither take it too seriously nor too lightly. Despite the rebalancing policy,
the U.S. will not go against the will of the international community and become firstuser of nuclear weapons. If any country dares to use nuclear weapons against China,
China will be able to counterattack, and we will be able to punish that kind of act.
Although we do not have so many nuclear weapons, they are enough to counter andpunish those first users.
On the role of the newly formed Chinese National Security Council, Gen. Ren
responded that the Council is to support our security interests by integrating all the
security forces surrounding the security matters. The Council assumes top strategic
positions, since it involves not only the defense or military departments, but all
departments related to security. It is connected somewhat with the Central MilitaryCommission, but not the same. To ensure national security, we not only need the
support of the armed forces, but also the support of the Foreign Ministry, ofintelligence, economic, cultural and other related departments. The National Security
Council will have a larger scope than the Central Military Commission.

26

On the issue of China’s policy to counter terrorism, Gen. Ren responded that our
position is that we are firmly opposed to terrorism, whether it takes place in otherparts of the world or in China. Terrorism represents the common enemy of mankind.
The first thing for us to do in fighting terrorism is to remove the soil for its creation.
We need to attack terrorism from all perspective, including political, social,economical, ethnic, cultural, and religious perspectives. In fighting against terrorism,
we have to rely on the people. We also have to enhance the development of theterrorism fighting professionals, including intelligence, military, and assistancemissions. Last but not least, we have only a single standard to judge terrorism. We do
not practice double standards.
On the issue of the Korean Peninsula, Gen. Ren responded that China has a consistentpolicy concerning the DPRK nuclear issue. China is committed to thedenuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. China is committed to the peace andstability of the Korean Peninsula, because that is crucial to the peoples and countries
in Northeast Asia, or even to Asia as a whole. All the disputes need to be solved
through peaceful negotiations. Currently the most effective way is through the Six
Party Talks. In the past, there were some possibilities emerged for the settlement of
the issue. However, it is regrettable that, later on, the ruling Party of the U.S. changed
policy towards the DPRK. So the most important thing is to honor one’s words.
On the issue of Diaoyu Islands, Gen. Ren said that the least thing we want is lack ofsincerity. Some leaders of some countries are actually losing the tradition of resolving
disputes through diplomatic means. They do not recognize there are disputes, whichclose the door for diplomatic talks. The only way left is to compare muscle strength.
Anybody, especially the leaders of a country, need to give top priority to upholding
world peace and their national interests, rather than pursuing the goal of winning more
votes, or working longer in their official positions.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Session Five
Water Security: Dealing with Common Challenges
Chair: HRH Sirivudh Norodom, Founder and Chairman
Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace, Cambodia
Prof. Zhou Shichun
Secretary General, Ecosystem Study Commission for International Rivers(ESCIR), China
Prof. Zhou noted that China is now facing a severe challenge along with further
industrialization and urbanization, as well as global climate change. Flood, drought,
pollution and soil erosion are still the predominate problems in China. China’s water
policy is to make a balance of exploitation and protection, economy and environment,
innovation of environment-friendly technologies, and to enhance international
cooperation. Following the update of China’s hydropower development in the27Lancang River, Prof. Zhou introduced some experiences for hydropower development,such as coordinating hydropower development with social economic development,emphasizing ecological and environmental protection throughout the hydropower
development, and balancing the interests of different stakeholders. He emphasizedthat as an upstream country, China has been adhering to the sustainable development
strategy, paying equal attention to development and conservation, and taking accountof the interests of both China and downstream countries in exploiting the hydropower
resources at the Lancang River.
Moving on to the water situation in the Mekong River, Prof. Zhou noted that the
Mekong River is one of the last large river on Earth not dammed for most of its length.
The Mekong River Basin is rich in water resources with only 15% available water
resources being exploited currently, and water pollution generally has not reached an
alarming level. He then pointed out the challenges including the lack of water service
provision, flood and drought management, a comprehensive basin development planand insufficient infrastructure on the basin.
Prof. Zhou finally pointed out that China attaches importance to the cooperation
between the upstream and the downstream countries. The hydrological data in wet
season in the Lancang River is shared with the downstream since 2002, and is also
shared in dry season in case of extreme draught. Under the agreement between China
and India, the Tibet Hydrological Bureau provides, from 1st June to 15th October,hydrological data and information to India since 2002. China has navigationcooperation with Myanmar, Lao PDR and Thailand. Capacity-building and technicalexchanges are also underway between the upstream and downstream countries.

Dr. Nguyen Nam Duong
Deputy Director General, Institute for Foreign Policy and Strategic Studies,
Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam
Dr. Nguyen Nam Duong emphasized that water security is a common challenge andhas never become more imperative as it is today due to the reasons Prof. Zhou has
mentioned. He added that over-damming is a very worrying trend in some of the
Asian countries, especially on trans-boundary rivers. The downstream countries arealways in a very disadvantage position in the sharing of water.
Dr. Nguyen Nam Duong then suggested that in order to deal with these challenges,
water security issues need to be mainstreamed into the sustainable development planat the national level. At the regional level, he noted that it's time to focus on water
security issues in the regional architecture. There needs to be a very comprehensive
and holistic view on the management of water instead of dealing with water separately.
He further suggested that water issue should be discussed in all the three pillars of theASEAN community, especially in the ASEAN political and security community, and28

also in the ASEAN economic community. With regard to the ASEAN Regional Forum,
he noted that ARF is now transforming from confidence-building measures topreventive diplomacy. Hence, water security issues could also be discussed as CBMs ,and as a PD area.

Mr. Mark Brindal
Adelaide University, Former Minister for Water Resources in the South
Australian Government, Australia
Echoing two previous speakers about the importance of water, Mr. Mark Brindal
noted that no more issues are important than water. The security on earth first depends
on whether we have enough food and water. This is not a battle between sovereignstates. It is a battle between us and nature, and nature always wins. The only way
mankind should do is to compromise with nature. In this respect, Mr. Brindal gives awarning of the declining water availability in the region.
Mr. Mark Brindal emphasized the importance of China because it controls the headwaters of most rivers in the region. He pointed out that China is a superpower in termof water. It has a vital role to play in the protection of humanity. There is an
opportunity for China to cooperate with the downstream states by building dams in anenvironmental friendly manner to achieve stability, lasting peace and prosperity in theregion.
Dr. Arvind Gupta
Director-General, Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses,
New Delhi, India
Dr. Arvind Gupta began his presentation by introducing the water situation in India
where there has been a rapid decline in per capita water availability and unevenly
distribution. In 2012, the Indian Government promoted national water policy whichseeks to a holistic and integrated approach to water management.
Dr. Gupta then touched upon the cooperation between India and its upstream anddownstream countries. India has been dealing with trans-boundary rivers for years. As
an upstream country, India has treaties with Pakistan and Bangladesh, and thesetreaties do take account of the interests of the downstream countries. Meanwhile, as adownstream country, India has some agreements with China, Nepal and Bhutan. He
noted that the data-sharing provided by China is useful, but the cooperation is still
limited. There are two main concerns, one is lack of information about the dammingin the Yarlung Zangbo River, and the other is the problem of water diversion. For
conclusion, he noted that although these treaties are comprehensive, some newelements, especially the climate change factor needs to be brought into the treaties.
Policy is fine but implementation is problematic. Wider cooperation and dialogue29

among countries are crucial concerning the trans-boundary rivers.
During the question and answer time, participants highlighted the importance ofcooperation in terms of water resources. Questions were raised including China’s
joining of the Mekong River Commission, China’s engagement with downstream
counties, in particular in terms of water-sharing and information of the damming. Also
there is a question concerns possible cyber attacks threatening the infrastructure
including hydropower station and irrigation system.
In response Prof. Zhou noted that although China has not yet joined the MRC, there
are no difficulties for China and MRC to carry out cooperation and exchanges
regarding the information-sharing and capacity-building. China in recent years hasvery good connection and cooperation with MRC on capacity-buildings, water
resource development, hydro environmental protection, and ICEA cooperation. Mr.
Mark Brindal pointed out that the political attitude of China not to get itself involvedin MRC is to avoid the rules of the team because it is not part of the team. He urges
all river basins, including Myanmar which is also not a member, to be MRC members
so as to accept responsibility rather than choosing them.
Regarding the cyber-attacks against the infrastructure, all panelists attach great
importance to the safety of infrastructure, especially the safety of dam system. One
panelist emphasized that security of hydropower dam should be treated as seriously as
the nuclear power plant. The threat to the constructions mainly comes from terrorists.
He further noted that governments need to review the construction of dams
comprehensively not only in terms of the water security but also in terms of thephysical security.
Session Six
Enhancing a Peaceful and Cooperative
Maritime Environment in the Region
Chair: Ambassador Barry Desker,
Dean, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore
Dr. Rizal Sukma
Executive Director, Centre for Strategic andInternational Studies, Indonesia
Dr. Sukma began his presentation by pointing out three of the worrying trends in theregion. Firstly the changing nature and changing value of the sea in East Asia. Due tothe changing nature of the power relations in the region, especially among the major
powers, at least for the last three or four years, East Asia maritime domain hasreceived a lot of tensions, thus increasing the strategic significance of the area. He
said that the return of the traditional concern of the sea might diminish what we have
tried to accomplish about how to cooperate to advance the notions of maritime
domain as the original public goods. Secondly due to the increasing risks of conflict,30

accident, incident, miscalculations, and in particular the major powers’ rivalry，theunresolved territorial disputes in East Asia are becoming more and more difficult toresolve. Thirdly although we have many non-traditional maritime issues to deal with,
we are now forced to think more about how to address traditional security challenges.
He noted that in the area of maritime space, the opportunity for cooperation in
non-traditional security issues is much greater than in other areas.
Dr. Sukma then made some suggestions with regards to the above-mentioned
worrying trends. He does not think ASEAN can do much to help resolve the East
China Sea dispute. However, he noted that it is in the South China Sea that ASEAN
does have a lot of expectation. The process at the moment is really on track.
Especially with political changes in China and also with the Brunei’s chairmanship of
ASEAN, there are more opportunities for both sides to move forward. And he pointed
out that the Suzhou meeting is a good starting point.
Dr. Sukma further noted that the priority should be put on the Code of Conduct inorder to avoid miscalculations and incidents at sea. At the same time, what is the mostimportant for ASEAN and China is to avoid letting the disputes overshadow theoverall ASEAN-China relation. He pointed out that while balancing the importance oftraditional challenges in maritime domain, we should not forget the non-traditional
security challenges, because traditional issue is basically problematic while
non-traditional maritime challenges can be profiled as opportunity and cooperation.
Dr. James Manicom
Research Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada
Dr. James Manicom’s presentation focused on how to cultivate a cooperative andharmonious maritime environment. In this regard, he mentioned the following threeways:
The first way concerns formal arbitration, binding arbitration and third party
intervention. He noted that the loss of arbitration could result in strategic as well as
political cost at home. He added that arbitration may not actually solve anything. Oneof the interesting features in the last two years’ Asian maritime disputes is that every
claimant has confidently asserted their claims and presented supporting evidences. It
gives the opportunity for the Track II to engage and discuss which evidence might berelevant in the court of law.
The second way is to build political will in order to settle disputes throughnegotiations, just as Australia and East Timor did in their dispute. Given the exampleof negotiations among the former Soviet Union, Cuba and the United States during
the Cuban missile crisis, he emphasized the importance of empathy-building whichmeans to put oneself in the shoes of its rivals.
31

The third way is to negotiate a new status quo in both the East China Sea and theSouth China Sea. Dr. Manicom noted that any sustainable status quo involves havingsome kind of ways to manage possible escalation of tensions between countries.
Furthermore, he attached importance to hot lines and confidence-building measures
between countries which have disputes, and said that CSCAP can play a role in thisregards.

Mr. Gi Hoon Hong
Professor of Marine Science and Policy, Korea Institute of Ocean Science andTechnology, Republic of Korea
Prof. Gi Hoon Hong presented some perspectives concerning prioritizing mutual trust
and achieving win-win cooperation in the field of marine environment. Firstly to join
and implement global marine environmental protection treaties, for example, theLondon Protocol which is on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping ofWastes and Other Matter. He noted that Asia Pacific is not very well managed interms of environment. It is urgent for CSCAP members to join the London Protocol,
because no voices from Southeast Asian countries are heard in global arena. Secondly
to establish the Asia-Pacific ESPOO Convention for the prevention of industrial
accidents. Taking the accident of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant as an example, hesuggested establishing a practical international regime on industrial accidents
prevention and on assistance supply to deal with aftermaths of large-scale accidents
potentially causing extraterritorial marine pollution.

Professor Paul Sinclair, Regional Security Fellow,
Centre for Strategic Studies, New ZealandIn his presentation, Prof. Paul Sinclair made some proposals on enhancing regional
maritime cooperation.
1. CUES He first mentioned about CUES which aims to offer a safety measure forfacilitating communication among Naval and public ships, submarines and aircrafts.
Last year’s WPNS decided to wait for formal adoption of CUES at the meeting in
China next year. The further development of CUES would be significant in building
cooperation in the maritime environment. He appreciated the process of the decision
made by ADMM+ expert working group on maritime security to exploit sometechnical aspect of CUES.
2. Pan-Regional Coast Guard Forum Prof. Paul Sinclair then noted that, should
CUES be formally adopted, one consideration is to extend it to coast guard operations.
The idea is to establish a Pan-Regional Coast Guard Forum. Given the fact that
Southeast Asia does not have an equivalent forum as the North Pacific Coast Guard
Forum, Pan-Regional Coast Guard Forum can provide region-wide framework to32

build confidence through professional level of interaction and regular dialogue
between coast guards.
3. Regional Maritime Domain Awareness He noted that the establishment ofinternational fusion centre in Singapore is an important step for promoting collective
awareness of trans-boundary maritime security threats.
4. ReCAAP It provides information-sharing and confidence-building arrangements
through inter-governmental cooperation against maritime piracy and armed robbery.
Prof. Paul Sinclair then touched upon challenges facing ReCAAP, that is the need forfurther institutionalized mechanism and a wide mandate to include all transnational
crimes into its framework.
5. Bilateral Hot Lines Prof. Paul Sinclair attached importance to bilateral hot lines inincident prevention and mitigation, including at the operation level between navies
and between coast guards. He noted that the agreement to set up a hot line between
China and Vietnam on resolving fishing incident in the disputed South China Sea
waters is a welcoming progress this year.
6. Search and Rescue Cooperation Prof. Paul Sinclair pointed out that recent
developments in the South Pacific have provided a useful experience in achieving aharmonized regional approach at this point. A non-binding regional arrangement thatfacilitates preparations through major SAR emergencies in the South China Sea
would be a significant and very practical confidence-building measure.
7. Security of Submarine Cables Finally, Prof. Sinclair highlighted the importanceof the submarine cables, saying they are the backbones of international
telecommunication network. However, little attention has been paid to ensuring its
security, he noted. He emphasized that there is an urgent need for a convention toprotect the security of submarine cables.
During the question and answer time, panelists were asked whether the Track 1.5 or
Track II processes could play a bigger role in dealing with sensitive issues in theregion, and how these processes could tackle difficult questions as well as explore
outside-the-box solutions to regional problems. One panellist noted that Track 1.5 or
Track II can actually help the government officials explore how UNCLOS and otherinternational laws are actually relevant to the disputes in the South China Sea. Also,
Track II can provide the input on the content of the COC. However, Track II musthave close access to government channels, otherwise, no matter how good therecommendations are, it would not be able to go through the decision-making process,he noted.
Another question was raised about renouncing the use of force in certain maritime
context. In response, Dr. Sukma noted that with regard to the South China Sea, the33

first principle of the DOC is no use of force. That is why until now even though wehave ups and downs, none of the claimants actually have used force to solve thedisputes. General Qian Lihua then expounded China’s position at the request of thequestioner. He said that China is the one victimized by use of force. Our position isthat we will never attack others unless we are attacked. China will never fire the first
shot. He pointed out that anyone who understands China and understands China's
defence policy should know the basic principle of China.
In response to a question on the concept of arbitration, on when applying arbitration
you need a unilateral action or an action after consensus of agreement by all parties
concerned, Prof. Paul Sinclair is not so convinced about the wisdom of unilateralapproaches to arbitration. Dr. James Manicom showed his disagreement by noting that
there is no need always seeking a common legal action. A unilateral action is not a
problem as long as it has legitimacy.

Conclusion
In the closing session, Prof. Nguyen Thai Yen Huong delivered her conclusion
remarks on behalf of CSCAP Co-Chairs. She noted that the 9 th General Conference
has concluded with significant achievements under the theme of mutual trust andwin-win cooperation. This conference has provided fresh thinking and prospective on
the emerging security challenges and the regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific.
Above all, it provided the format for building trust and enhancing cooperation in thisregion. The speeches presented by China’s Vice Foreign Minister and Vice Presidentof the Chinese Academy of Military Science were very comprehensive and fruitful.
She pointed out that the security dialogue at the second track is essential for theregion, as there has existed many significant and hot spot issues that require dialogue
and other confidence-building measures. The 9th General Conference in Beijing is agreat event which has promoted the good spirit of CSCAP from a wider setting to awider audience. She then expressed her gratitude and appreciation to CSCAP China,
China Institute of International Studies, CSCAP Secretariat and each member
committee especially Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia, for their substantive andfinancial support in the organizations of the conference. The appreciations also go to
all participants and the volunteers. Finally, she hopes the results of the conference will
not only be useful for CSCAP activity but also for the regional cooperation in the
coming future.
Ambassador Leela K Ponappa added by saying that what was really gratifying interms of this conference was there were so many suggestions with the aim of making
CSCAP recommendations pragmatic and practical. She further noted that thisconference and the works of CSCAP for the past twenty years have demonstrated thattrack two can play a role, although it may not be evident immediately, but it keeps thediscourse going.
3435