CSCAP MEMORANDUM NO. 30

Preventive Diplomacy: Promoting Prospects for Mediation andPeaceful Settlement of Disputes in the Asia-Pacific Region

A Memorandum from theCouncil for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
Dec 2017

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
Memorandum No. 30
Preventive Diplomacy: Promoting Prospects for Mediation andPeaceful Settlement of Disputes in the Asia-Pacific Region
Nov 2016
Introduction
Preventive diplomacy in the general sense is broadly defined as any diplomaticaction aimed at preventing conflict from arising, existing conflict from escalating,and limiting the spread of conflicts once they occur. Based on a proposal byCSCAP, ARF Ministers endorsed a more circumscribed and prescriptive
understanding of Preventive Diplomacy and defined it as consensual diplomaticand political action taken by sovereign states with the consent of all directly
involved parties. In practice its most common expressions can be found in the useof mediation and good offices, deployment of fact-finding, monitoring andinvestigation missions, or any formal or informal effort taken by acceptable thirdactors to help ease tensions between potential conflict parties. The benefits of PD
are widely recognised by the UN and ARF principles, and a number of contentious
issues in Asia have been successfully settled when parties have given consent
for the use of international legal arbitration or third party mediation. However,many current sources of tensions in the ARF region remain eligible for the process.
Consequently, regional multilateral organisations like the ARF should move ahead
with specific PD initiatives and work towards putting in place institutional
mechanisms and instruments for conflict prevention and management.
Background
The ARF Preventive Diplomacy Work plan of 2011 underlined the importance ofpartnering with mutually agreeable organisations to build capacity and capabilityof its participants in the area of PD. The 2013 Concept Paper on “moving towards
Preventive Diplomacy” further emphasised the need for familiarisation with PD
mechanisms through learning and sharing, before developing concrete PD toolsthat would be appropriate for the ARF region. Since then, the Inter-sessional

1Support Group (ISG) on Confidence Building Measure (CBM) and Preventive
Diplomacy (PD) continues to emphasize the need to further study PD and develop
more specific recommendations and policies for governments to adopt, in
consideration of the region’s specificities and unique diplomatic culture.
Mindful of these developments, the CSCAP Study Group on PD sought to examine
the prospects for mediation and peaceful settlement of disputes in the region
thorough collecting and analysing successful and less successful uses of PD in
the past, and identifying drivers and obstacles specific to the ARF region. It also
identified gaps within the current conceptual frameworks, and sought to work on
agreed elements for a future ARF PD training curriculum that ARF members candraw upon for peacebuilding and mediation efforts.
Findings
The global and regional geopolitical context has evolved. The world has become
more interconnected and interdependent, with threats transcending national
borders and impacting the security of all. This new global reality brings about newchallenges, but also new opportunities, which need to be reflected in the way PD
is understood, conceptualised and implemented. The changing security
environment requires new and creative forms of thinking about PD.
The emergence of new factors and actors, including new technologies and new(non-state) actors on the international arena must be taken into consideration. This
also requires learning from a greater variety of cases to understand emerging
challenges and possible approaches.
When analyzing the effectiveness of PD, the Study Group concluded the distinction
between “success” and “failure” is blurred. PD needs to be understood as a nonlinear process, as a seemingly resolved conflict may easily slip back into dispute.
Consequently, PD involvement needs to remain not only constant, but also flexible,adapting to the evolving situation and degree of tensions.
Inter-state and intra-state conflicts are deeply interconnected: an intra-state
conflict may exacerbate or develop into an inter-state dispute.1

1

Although the current ARF definition of PD only focuses on inter-state conflicts, the Study Group noted the benefitof revising the conceptual divide between the use of PD in “intra-state” and “inter-state” conflicts, due to theiroften interconnected nature. This argument did not achieve consensus among all CSCAP Member Committees.

2While there is no shortage of PD tools available – in the UN or the ARF contexts –the greatest obstacle to their successfully implementation remains the lack ofpolitical will of the parties involved, mostly due to lasting suspicions of third party
involvement and fears of loss of sovereignty. Increasing awareness on thevoluntary basis of the recourse to PD and its long term benefits, as well as
openness to less formal mechanisms needs to be reflected in the ongoing learning
process.
Finally, there is a crucial need to overcome knowledge silos and to improvecoordination and information sharing between relevant Track 1 and Track 2 bodies,
as well as civil society already extensively working on PD – in order to avoid
duplication of efforts. The implication in the ARF definition that only sovereignstates can engage in preventive diplomacy means a lot of valuable contributions
are not taken into account. CSCAP, as a track II network, can continue to play an
innovative role in generating, incubating and transmitting knowledge and ideas ofpotential activities that could help prevent conflicts breaking out and escalating. Itis hoped that these knowledge management efforts by CSCAP can input to thework of the ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation that ARF Ministers havesuggested should provide services such as monitoring of regional security trends,
identification of potential flash points in Asia Pacific and the recommendation of
preventive diplomacy measures.

Recommendations
I.

General considerations

A more active implementation of PD within the ARF could include:a. The establishment of a roster of mediation experts/units, which would
allow interested parties to access information and necessary PDexpertise on a voluntary basis.
b. The establishment of an early warning system within the ARF, exploringsynergies with existing and proposed organisations, such as theASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR). A better divisionof roles, tasks and labour among ARF’s various advisory bodies (EEP,CSCAP, AIPR) would be helpful.
c. The establishment of fact-finding missions.2

2

The possibility of establishing election monitoring missions within the ARF context has also been discussed.

3

PD capacity-buildinga. Continued training for diplomats based on case study materials for roleplaying/scenario simulation.
b. On-line repository of key PD resources, case studies and references. ,CSCAP can help meet the need for documented examples and cases
as well as providing a variety of perspectives on evaluating successand failure.
c. Make better use of social media to ensure greater outreach andinclusiveness.
II.

Operational PD: Off-the-shelf CBM/PD measures which the ARF could
considerA. Korean Peninsula.
The ARF could facilitate informal discussions to encourage parties to thedispute on the Korean Peninsula to: cultivate a fact-based understanding of
the South and North Korean perspectives; serve in a good offices capacity
to establish confidence building measures and tension reduction on theKorean maritime and land borders, particularly vis-à-vis reducing clashes
along the Northern Limit Line and limiting propaganda spreading across theDMZ; and to reinvigorate direct communication and crisis hotlines betweendisputants.
B. Marine Environmental Sustainability
The ARF could encourage forming a Study Group on Marine Environmental
Sustainability. The Group would be tasked with collaborating with technicalexperts and undertaking working visits to study the impact of anthropocentric
activities on the marine environment, above all coral life and fish stocks. ThisStudy Group would brief ARF member states, with a view to advising theARF on further possible actions to limit the environmental impact of humanactivities at sea.3

3

The Study Group discussed notably the impact of environmental degradation in the case of regional seas
suffering from a lack of governance due to overlapping sovereignty claims.

4III. ARF Institutional Mechanisms: Functional reforms, which the ARF may
consider developing in the medium-term.
The ARF should consider developing a program of PD exercises - possibly
facilitated by CSCAP and role-played by EEPs and/or officials in a personal
capacity. These simulations would explore the possible PD actions of theARF in a variety of regional contingencies. A final ARF Report on PD
exercises presented to member states in 2018 advising on the feasibility,and desirability, of mandating a Risk Reduction Centre to carry out suchactivities to generate lessons learned.4

ABOUT CSCAP
CSCAP is a non-governmental (second track) process for dialogue on securityissues in the Asia Pacific. Membership in CSCAP is on an institutional basis andconsists of Member Committees. Current membership comprises Australia, Brunei
Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, the EU, India, Indonesia, Japan, theDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia,
Myanmar New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam
and the USA.
The functions of CSCAP are as follows:a. to provide an informal mechanism by which political and security issues canbe discussed by scholars, officials, and others in their private capacities;
b. to encourage the participants of such individuals from countries andterritories in the Asia Pacific on the basis of the principle of inclusiveness;c. to organise various working groups to address security issues andchallenges facing the region;d. to provide policy recommendations to various intergovernmental bodies onpolitical-security issues;e. to convene regional and international meetings and other cooperative
activities for the purpose of discussing political-security issues;

4

In line with the discussion on the possibility of promoting election monitoring within the ARF context, ARF
member states could establish an Electoral Observation Fund to train a cohort of 100 professional electionobservers to be sent on short notice, solely upon request from the participating member state and/or non-ARFstate. This cadre of electoral observers could request training opportunities facilitated by the EU, OSCE and UN by
participating in extra-regional electoral observation missions in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, etc.

5

f. to establish linkages with institutions and organisations in other parts of theworld to exchange information, insights and experiences in the area ofregional political-security cooperation; andg. to produce and disseminate publications relevant to the other purposes ofthe organisation.
Study Groups are the primary mechanism for CSCAP activity. As of July 2016,
there were five CSCAP Study Groups. These are concerned with: (i) Preventive
Diplomacy; (ii) Non-Proliferation and Disarmament; (iii) Harmonisation of
Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue; (iv) Marine Environment
Protection; and (v) Peacekeeping.
This memorandum was produced by the CSCAP Study Group on Preventive
Diplomacy.
Further information on CSCAP can be obtained from the CSCAP website atwww.cscap.org or by contacting the CSCAP Secretariat:
CSCAP Secretariat
c/o ISIS Malaysia
1 Persiaran Sultan Salahuddin
PO Box 12424
50778 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
T: +603-2693 9366 Ext 125
F: +603-2693 9375
E: cscap@isis.org.myCSCAP Memoranda
CSCAP Memoranda are the outcome of the work of Study Groups approved by theSteering Committee and submitted for consideration by the ASEAN Regional Forumand other bodies.

6 Memorandum No.29 – Harmonisation of Aeronautical and Maritime Search andRescue (SAR)
Author: Study Group on Harmonisation of Aeronautical and Maritime Search andRescue (SAR)
Date published: July 2017
 Memorandum No.28 – Energy Security in the Asia Pacific Region
Author: Study Group on Energy Security
Date published: June 2016
 Memorandum No.27 – Implementation of UNSCR 1540
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: April 2015
 Memorandum No.26 – Towards an Effective Regional Security Architecture for theAsia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Regional Security Architecture
Date published: June 2014
 Memorandum No.25 – Maritime CBMs, Trust and Managing Incidents at Sea Author:
Study Group on Principles for Good Order at Sea
Date published: June 2014
 Memorandum No.24 – Safety and Security of Vital Undersea Communications
Infrastructure
Author: Experts Group on Vital Undersea Communications Infrastructure
Date published: May 2014
 Memorandum No.23 – Enhancing Water Security in the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Water Resources Security
Date published: January 2014
 Memorandum No.22 – Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: September 2012
 Memorandum No.21 – Implications of Naval Enhancement in the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Naval Enhancement in the Asia PacificDate published: August 2012
 Memorandum No.20 – Ensuring A Safer Cyber Security Environment
Author: Study Group on Cyber Security
Date published: May 20127 Memorandum No.19 – Reduction and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: February 2012
 Memorandum No.18 – Implementing the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)
Author: Study Group on the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP)
Date published: September 2011
 Memorandum No.17 – Promoting the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy
Author: Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in the Asia PacificDate published: June 2011
 Memorandum No.16 – Safety and Security of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
Author: Study Group on Safety and Security of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations
Date published: January 2011
 Memorandum No.15 – The Security Implications of Climate Change
Author: Study Group on the Security Implications of Climate Change
Date published: July 2010
 Memorandum No.14 – Guidelines for Managing Trade of Strategic GoodsAuthor: Export Controls Experts Group (XCXG)
Date published: March 2009
 Memorandum No.13 – Guidelines for Maritime Cooperation in Enclosed and SemiEnclosed Seas and Similar Sea Areas of the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia PacificDate published: June 2008
 Memorandum No.12 – Maritime Knowledge and Awareness: Basic Foundations ofMaritime SecurityAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia PacificDate published: December 2007
 Memorandum No.11 – Human TraffickingAuthor: Study Group on Human Trafficking
Date published: June 2007
 Memorandum No.10 – Enhancing Efforts to Address Factors Driving International
Terrorism
Author: Study Group on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Campaign Against
International Terrorism with Specific Reference to the Asia Pacific Region
Date published: December 2005

8 Memorandum No.9 – Trafficking of Firearms in the Asia Pacific Region
Author: Working Group on Transnational Crime
Date published: May 2004
 Memorandum No.8 – The Weakest Link? Seaborne Trade and the Maritime Regime
in the Asia PacificAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: April 2004
 Memorandum No.7 – The Relationship Between Terrorism and Transnational CrimeAuthor: Working Group on Transnational Crime
Date published: July 2003
 Memorandum No.6 – The Practice of the Law of the Sea in the Asia PacificAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: December 2002
 Memorandum No.5 – Cooperation for Law and Order at SeaAuthor: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: February 2001
 Memorandum No.4 – Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation
Author: Working Group on Maritime Cooperation
Date published: December 1997
 Memorandum No.3 – The Concepts of Comprehensive Security and Cooperative
SecurityAuthor: Working Group on Comprehensive and Cooperative Security
Date published: December 1995
 Memorandum No.2 – Asia Pacific Confidence and Security Building Measures
Author: Working Group on Confidence and Security Building Measures
Date published: June 1995
 Memorandum No.1 – The Security of the Asia Pacific Region
Author: CSCAP
Date published: April 1994

9