CSCAP MEMORANDUM NO. 25

Maritime CBMs, Trust and ManagingIncidents at Sea

A Memorandum from theCouncil for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
June 2014

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP)
Memorandum No. 25
Maritime CBMs, Trust and Managing Incidents at Sea
June 2014
1.

Introduction: The Macro and Micro Views of Regional Maritime
Security

Tensions have been rising in Asia’s maritime regions. While no party wants aconflict to break out, an incident and subsequent miscalculation could wellresult in unintended escalation. Discussions at the diplomatic level on
instituting a series of Confidence Building Measures [CBMs] indicate that
progress is being made on maritime safety and security. But incidents andprovocations at sea and the air may occur, sometimes spurred by broader
tensions at the macro level, and such incidents may spiral out of control
creating diplomatic and political crises. There is a need to propose specificcrisis prevention and management measures that CSCAP could recommend
to the Track I level.
2.

Building Trust and Confidence

The search for CBMs that will reduce the prospect of an incident in themaritime commons escalating to conflict has, and continues to, preoccupy
several Track I and Track II forums in the Asia Pacific region. CBMs that havebeen proposed in these forums include:
2.1. At the political level
The Asia-Pacific region has, and continues to work on a series of political
CBMs. These include: (i) the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast
Asia which aims to ensure peace, cooperation and solidarity among ASEAN
countries; (ii) the Declaration of Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea
which aims to guide behaviour among the South China Sea disputants andwork towards an eventual Code of Conduct; (iii) the ASEAN Regional Forumwhich promote dialogue on political and security matters and enhance
confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the region; (iv) the ASEAN
Maritime Forum and Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum which provides aplatform for ASEAN member states and their partners to pursue maritime
interests and explore common approaches in ensuring maritime security; (v)the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting which engages ASEAN Dialogue
Partners in dialogue and cooperation on defence and security matters; as well
as defence white papers. It is significant to note that all these political CBMs
assume that the parties subscribe to the norms of cooperative security, acentral pillar of the regional security architecture, which is underpinned bytrust among one another. The dilemma is the extent to which cooperation ispossible when there is a trust deficit in the region.
1

2.2.

At the operational level

2.2.1. Functional Cooperation
Functional cooperation for the safety of navigation, search-and-rescue,humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), coastal zone
management and environmental protection would be more easily achievableas CBMs in the absence of trust, when the CBMs are framed within arecognised institution or regime (e.g. UNCLOS, IMO Conventions, etc.). Often
on-going CBMs include HADR as well as search and rescue exercises, andthese have shown some success over the years. However, efficacy of thesefunctional cooperative efforts as CBMs is hampered by the lack of
coordination at the national and regional levels, as well as the wariness of theimpact on sovereignty claims that some believe agreement to these CBMs
could potentially pose, especially in disputed territories.
2.2.2. Regional incidents-at-sea agreement
Regional incidents-at-sea agreements modelled on the United States-Soviet
Union Incidents-At-Sea Agreement (INCSEA) concluded in 1972 havepreviously been suggested. However, this may be premature at this stage.
This navy-to-navy agreement relates to incidents wherever occurring at sea,
but it should be noted that such agreements in Asian waters would have tooccur in the context of a larger number of, and more complex,
jurisdictional/territorial disputes. Negotiations on a regional agreement would
also open up differing views about the rights of other states to conduct militaryactivities within an EEZ without permission from or prior notification to thecoastal state.
2.2.3. Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES)
The Western Pacific Naval Symposium 'Code for Unplanned Encounters atSea' (CUES) offers safety measures and a means to limit mutual interference,
to limit uncertainty, and to facilitate communication when naval ships or naval
aircraft encounter each other in an unplanned manner. It is not legally binding;rather it is a coordinated means of communication to maximise safety at sea.
It may be adopted on a voluntary and non-binding basis within WPNS and isavailable for implementation by any navy on the same basis.
2.2.4. Pan-regional coast guard forum
Coast Guards and other law enforcement agencies, as they improve theircapabilities and assume greater responsibilities for maritime security, needregional forums (like the Navy) to interact with, and better understand other
Coast Guards they encounter at sea. An example of such a forum would be
the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum established in 2000 which includes
Canada, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States.
The Forum has had some success in documenting best practices among
Coast Guards and has a web-based information exchange system, whilebilateral and multilateral operations and exercises have been conducted underits auspices. South East Asia does not have an equivalent forum and existing2

regional information sharing centres do not have a mandate to provide aplatform to improve awareness and communication across the full spectrum ofactivities encompassed by the North Pacific Forum, although the Regional
Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against
Ships in Asia (ReCAAP), which has its Information Sharing Centre (ISC)
located in Singapore, has provided a platform for regional coast guards tocooperate on counter-piracy.
At the pan-regional level, there is also the Heads of Asian Coast Guard
Agencies Meeting (HACGAM). This initiative was started in 2004 to discuss
cooperation among the member organizations to combat piracy in the region.
However, the scope of discussions has since expanded to include law
enforcement, maritime security, disaster prevention and relief and capacitybuilding. Presently, 17 countries take part in the initiative. Such forums play animportant role in building confidence through professional-level interaction andregular dialogue between regional maritime law enforcement agencies. This isof increasing importance given the role that Coast Guards and otherparamilitary ships are playing in asserting sovereignty and sovereign rights
within contested waters.
2.3.

At the technical level

2.3.1. Enhancing maritime situational awareness [MSA]
In order to maintain good order at sea and counter transnational threats inregional waters, countries must first be aware of what is occurring in theirmaritime environment and have in place a responsive enforcement capacity.
An inclusive and cooperative MSA arrangement should also be able to alert
participating countries to possible incidents before it happens or soon
thereafter.
The ReCAAP ISC promotes information sharing and capacity building
arrangements to enhance regional cooperation to combat maritime piracy andarmed robbery. The establishment of the Information Fusion Centre at the C2Centre in Singapore’s Changi Naval Base in April 2009 serves as a regional
maritime information hub to enhance maritime situational awareness, and toact as an early warning system. The challenge now is to further broaden andinstitutionalise such mechanisms for increased maritime domain awarenessleading to security cooperation.
2.3.2. Direct communication links & hotlines
Establishing direct communication links, including ‘hotlines’, between thedefence ministries, navies and paramilitary maritime organisations of regionalcountries can provide vital channels for communication, especially whererelations are complicated by maritime disputes. During periods of tension,
such channels can play a useful function in preventing inadvertent escalation.
In normal times, the hotline can also play a helpful confidence building role,
while not replacing some countries’ preferences for informal or inter-personal
3

connections. An initiative is currently under way through the ADMM on
hotlines that could in due course be expanded.
Given widespread differences in capacities, existing practices and politicalexpectations among regional states, care will be needed to ensure that
common communication protocols are agreed and understood. Whilecountries’ willingness to set up ‘hotlines’ may be a good indicator of their
willingness to engage in crisis management, the ultimate value of such links
will depend on the good intentions of the parties concerned, with no guaranteethat they may be utilised or even maintained in a crisis.
3.

CBMs and Trust: Cooperating without Trust

An underlying assumption of cooperative security in the Asia Pacific is that
CBMs are trust-building measures. The vision was that starting with functional
cooperation in SAR, HADR or marine scientific research, the region could
build the trust to move to other operational and political CBMs for cooperative
security. Cooperation is perceived to be both an obligation and a necessity,and that trust will follow cooperation. Hopefully, CBMs could lead to both trustand confidence, reducing the chances of an incident at sea escalating into a
political crisis. But where CBMs do not lead to cooperation and trust, crisis
management will then be critical to prevent an inadvertent escalation tomilitary conflict.
3.1. Risk management and crisis mitigation
An Incident-at-Sea may escalate into a political crisis as a result of theinadequacy of CBMs. Current information technology would further accelerate
the pace of crises. The worst case scenario question of what happens when
the CBMs break down in an Incident at Sea needs to be considered. Whatmeasures can be utilised to prevent disputes and conflicts arising from, forexample, a fishing trawler being fired upon by a coast guard vessel claiming
the trawler is in waters protected by that coast guard vessel? Crisis
management measures will need to be put in place to prevent a violent
encounter between the fishing trawler and the coast guard vessel fromescalating into a major standoff and between the law enforcement agencies
and even naval vessels despatched to protect its fishing trawler which has
been fired upon by the rival Coast Guard.
Are there in place hotlines or communication channels, and more importantly,
the trust in the conversations over those hotlines to de-escalate the stand-off?
That failing, can fact-finding missions and Eminent Persons Group forming
goodwill missions mediate in the crisis? It can only be hoped that common
interest in avoiding injury to personnel, ship and aircraft as well as somegoodwill, patience and tolerance in spite of underlying distrust will prevail in acrisis over the next Incident at Sea.

4

4.

Recommendations

4.1. At the political level
ASEAN and its dialogue partners should continue to work on moving theregion, as well as North and South Asia, from CBMs to preventive diplomacy.
ASEAN states and China should steadily advance consultation on a COC in
the South China Sea within the framework of a complete and effective
implementation of the Declaration of the Conduct of Parties issued in 2002, inparticular the building of trust and confidence by holding defence and militarydialogues; voluntary exchange of relevant information and notification ofimpending joint military exercise, ensuring just and humane treatment of all
persons in danger or distress, and the undertaking of cooperative activities on,inter alia, marine environmental protection, scientific research, safety ofnavigation and communication at sea, search and rescue operations, andcountering transnational crime. In addition, the parties involved should alsoadhere to the 2011 Guidelines for the Implementation of the DOC. At thesame time, the greater region may need to look more at operational or
technical level CBMs. Success of political and strategic CBMs would depend
on a commitment to resolving disputes peacefully and abiding by internationallaw.
4.2. Maritime situational awareness
There is a need for a voluntary initiative to coordinate and promote maritime
situational awareness for search-and-rescue and disaster relief throughout theregion, similar to the ReCAAP ISC and the Information Fusion Centre. It is
worth noting that Singapore has recently offered to host a regional
coordination centre for HADR at the Changi Command and Control Centre.
4.3. Hotlines
In the context of the Asia-Pacific, hotlines and other lower-level directcommunication measures should have the highest priority as a CBM in crisis
management. One useful outcome which a group like WPNS might promote
could be the development of bilateral hotlines, including at the operational
level between Air Forces, Navies and Coast Guards, to prevent the escalationof an incident. While the immediate need for hotlines is nearly always bilateral,that could in due course lead to the evolution of multilateral hotlines forbroader consultation and confidence building. However, it is important to notethat hotlines will have little utility in times of tension unless both parties have aclear understanding as to their purpose, what they are able to achieve andwhat their limitations are, as well as the capacity and willingness to use themeffectively and not cancel them when most needed during a crisis. Moreover,the hotlines should be used with the knowledge of the appropriate personnel
to call, especially the level or rank of seniority of the personnel manning thehotlines, and there must be a way for the hotlines to reach key decisionmakers such as chiefs-of-staff at any time during a crisis.

5ABOUT CSCAP
CSCAP is a non-governmental (second track) process for dialogue on security
issues in the Asia Pacific. Membership in CSCAP is on an institutional basis
and consists of Member Committees. Current membership comprises
Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, China, the EU, India,Indonesia, Japan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic ofKorea, Malaysia, Mongolia, 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
can be 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 ofinclusiveness;c. to organise various working groups to address security issues andchallenges facing the region;d. to provide policy recommendations to various intergovernmental bodies
on political-security issues;e. to convene regional and international meetings and other cooperative
activities for the purpose of discussing political-security issues;
f. to establish linkages with institutions and organisations in other parts ofthe world to exchange information, insights and experiences in the areaof regional political-security cooperation; andg. to produce and disseminate publications relevant to the other purposesof the organisation.
Study Groups are the primary mechanism for CSCAP activity. As of June
2014, there were three CSCAP Study Groups. These are concerned with: (i)Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Asia
Pacific. (ii) Principles for Good Order at Sea; and (iii) Regional Security
Architecture.
This memorandum was produced by the CSCAP Study Group on Principles
for Good Order at Sea and was approved by the 41st CSCAP Steering
Committee Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 5 June 2014.
Further information on CSCAP can be obtained from the CSCAP website atwww.cscap.org or by contacting the CSCAP Secretariat:

6

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.my7

CSCAP Memoranda
CSCAP Memoranda are the outcome of the work of Study Groups approved bythe Steering Committee and submitted for consideration by the ASEAN RegionalForum and other bodies.
 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 2012
 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 20118 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 Goods
Author: Export Controls Experts Group (XCXG)
Date published: March 2009
 Memorandum No.13 – Guidelines for Maritime Cooperation in Enclosed andSemi-Enclosed Seas and Similar Sea Areas of the Asia PacificAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the Asia
Pacific
Date published: June 2008
 Memorandum No.12 – Maritime Knowledge and Awareness: Basic Foundationsof Maritime SecurityAuthor: Study Group on Facilitating Maritime Security Cooperation in the AsiaPacificDate published: December 2007
 Memorandum No.11 – Human Trafficking
Author: 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
 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 20029 Memorandum No.5 – Cooperation for Law and Order at Sea
Author: Working Group on Maritime CooperationDate 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 andCooperative Security
Author: 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 199410