Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page
Go to Issue No. 1 August 1995
Go to Issue No. 2 January 1996
Go to Issue No. 3 September 1996
Go to Issue No. 4 March 1997

FOREWORD

The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) passed another institutional milestone when it held its first General Meeting in Singapore on 4 June 1997. When CSCAP was established and its Charter adopted in 1993, it included Article IX that 'CSCAP shall convene a General Meeting on a regular basis'. However, the frequency, agenda, locations, and modalities of such meetings were left for later decision.

The decision in 1996 to organise the first CSCAP General meeting reflected the progress made over the previous three years with the establishment of CSCAP Member Committees in some 20 countries. Some of these Committees are very large, with 50 or more members, while others have only a couple of dozen. (AUS-CSCAP now has 35 members).

There were about 200 members of these Member Committees at the Singapore Meeting, including about 10 from AUS-CSCAP.

The Keynote Address was given by Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence of Singapore. Other presentations were given by both officials and non-officials from around the Asia Pacific, including H.E. Chen Jian, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China; H.E. Shunji Yanai, Deputy Foreign Minister of Japan; and H.E. Vu Khoan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Vietnam. Madame Hong Son Ok from North Korea also participated. Associate Professor Anthony Bergin from AUS-CSCAP also gave a presentation.

The meeting was very successful thanks in no small part to the organisational effort of CSCAP Singapore. The question of the Second General Meeting will be discussed at the Eighth CSCAP Steering Committee Meeting in Tokyo in December.

Professor Des Ball, Co-Chair AUS-CSCAP

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM

The ARF, the annual meeting of Asia Pacific Foreign Ministers on regional security, held its fourth meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 27 July 1997 under the chairmanship of Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi. ARF 4 saw in-depth discussions of issues of current regional concern, the participation of defence officials for the first time at meetings at this level, and agreement on moving towards preventive diplomacy, the second stage of the ARF's three stages of development. Of particular interest to Australia were the confirmation of our co-chairing with Brunei of the 1997-98 meetings of the Intersessional Group on Confidence Building Measures, and the initial discussion of a 'good offices' role for the ARF Chair. Following an extensive program of bilateral meetings with other Foreign Ministers, the Australian Foreign Minister Mr Downer also announced the establishment of four new regular bilateral dialogues on regional security.

Regional Security Developments

The meeting, which again comprised an informal dinner, followed by a full day of plenary discussions, clearly demonstrated that regional countries are becoming more comfortable with exchanging views on a range of security issues in a full and frank manner. Particularly at the dinner, but also in the plenary, discussion this year was dominated by events in Cambodia. Ministers expressed grave concern about recent developments and a major outcome from the meeting was the consensus on ARF support for ASEAN's initiative in helping to restore political stability. This was reflected in the Chairman's Statement from ARF 4, again the only formal documentation to emerge from the meeting. (The full text of the Chairman's Statement and its substantive annexes can be found on the DFAT ARF home page.

At ARF 3 there had been substantial discussion on Burma at the informal ARF dinner before Burma formally joined the ARF at the plenary the following day. This year there was also extensive discussion on developments in Burma but this time it took place primarily in the plenary and it was notable that this year all the discussion took place in the presence of the Burmese.

There was again extensive discussion of developments in relation to the Korean Peninsula with the Chairman's Statement reflecting ARF members support for the four party talks process and for continued support for KEDO. Other issues covered included the South China Sea and a range of non-proliferation and disarmament issues, in particular anti-personnel land mines. The Chairman's Statement covered the latter issues extensively inter alia welcoming the adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention and on landmines, and taking note of both the Ottawa and the Conference on Disarmament (CD) processes and the appointment of the CD Special Coordinator (an Australian).

Defence Involvement

In an important development which should encourage greater participation by Defence agencies in the whole ARF process, an additional seat in the ARF was made available for each delegation to enable defence representatives to attend. The agreement to expand the existing 1+1 format (that is Foreign Minister accompanied by one senior official) to a 1+2 format was reached through correspondence just prior to ARF 4. Australia welcomed this development having been a consistent advocate of increased defence participation in the ARF and taking advantage of it, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Downer, was accompanied not only by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Philip Flood but also by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence, Mr Hugh White. At this ARF, only about half of the Foreign Ministers were accompanied by defence representatives in large part because of the late agreement to permit this. It is expected, however, that this practice will become standard for most members at future meetings.

Intersessional Support Group on Confidence Building Measures (ISG on CBMs)

Ministers agreed that the work of the core intersessional group of the ARF, that on confidence building measures, should continue and welcomed the offers of Australia and Brunei to co-chair this group for the 1997/98 intersessional year, taking over from China and the Philippines, who co-chaired a CBMs meeting in Beijing in March 1996. This will be the first time that Australia has co-chaired an official level ARF meeting. There will be two meetings of the ISG on CBMs during this intersessional year - one in Brunei on 4-6 November and a second in Sydney in early March 1998.

Preventive Diplomacy and Enhancing the Role of the ARF Chair

Ministers also agreed to recommendations made at the May ARF Senior Officials Meeting (ARF SOM) that the ARF process should begin to move towards its agreed second stage of preventive diplomacy, while still continuing with its first stage of developing confidence building measures (CBMs). (ARF 2 agreed on a three stage evolution of the ARF of CBMs, preventive diplomacy and approaches to conflict and this was set out in the ARF 2 Chairman's Statement). At ARF 4 Ministers agreed that official level consideration of preventive diplomacy for the next year should take place in the intersessional group on Confidence Building Measures. This means Australia, as Co-Chair, will have an important role in shepherding this forward in a way acceptable to all. During the ARF 4 plenary there was initial discussion of some ideas for enhancing the preventive diplomacy role of the ARF Chair, including suggestions which Mr Downer and others raised of developing a 'good offices' role for the ARF Chair. There was no disagreement to the proposition that this particular idea should be considered in greater detail in the CBMs group.

Agreements on the Work Program

As usual Ministers considered the recommendations for cooperative activities made by the various first track (official level) ARF activities held during the 1996-97 intersessional period and agreed to these. The Chairman's Statement has annexes containing these recommendations from the Intersessional Support Group on Confidence Building Measures (ISG on CBMs), the Intersessional Meeting (ISM) on Disaster Relief, the ISM on Search and Rescue, and recommendations from the Co-Chairs of the ISM on Peacekeeping, which had not itself met but had held a workshop on Train the Trainers (which Australia co-hosted) and a seminar on Demining. In addition the annexes contain reports from the two second track (unofficial level) activities, a seminar on preventive diplomacy and a seminar on non-proliferation, of which the Ministers took note.

In addition to the continuation of the group on CBMs mentioned above, ARF 4 agreed to the continuation into the next intersessional year of the meeting on Disaster Relief co-chaired by Thailand and New Zealand, with a meeting to be held in Bangkok in early 1998. Ministers also agreed that technical/expert level activities on Peacekeeping would continue and that Search and Rescue meetings should also move to the technical/expert level. Ministers welcomed the offer of Singapore to convene a Search and Rescue Coordination and Cooperation Planners and Officials Conference in Singapore in December 1997, and the offer of the EU to host a Workshop on Approaches to Training for Peacekeeping Operations in Ireland during the first half of 1998. Consistent with agreement reached at ARF 3, there will also be a Meeting of Heads of National Defence Colleges hosted by the Philippines in Manila in October 1997. Ministers also welcomed the proposal for a track two seminar on preventive diplomacy in Singapore in September co-sponsored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies of the UK and the Singapore Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Other Matters

Membership was not discussed at ARF 4 but Ministers agreed that the next ARF SOM would begin consideration of individual membership applications on the basis of the membership guidelines and criteria agreed at ARF 3.

The Chairmanship of the ARF, in line with the annual rotation of the Chairmanship of ASEAN, changed immediately after the Kuala Lumpur meetings and the Philippines has now taken over from Malaysia as Chairman for the 1997-98 intersessional period.

Bilateral Regional Security Dialogues

In a press conference during his visit to Kuala Lumpur for the ARF, Mr Downer announced the establishment of four new bilateral dialogues on regional security. The establishment of dialogues with China, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam represents a significant expansion in Australia's network of regional security dialogues and means that Australia now has bilateral security linkages, in one form or another, with most of the countries of the East Asia/Pacific. The establishment of such bilateral linkages is encouraged by the ARF and complements multilateral dialogue on regional security developments.

Rosemary Greaves
Director, Regional Security Section
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

BILATERALISM IN A MULTILATERAL ERA

As multilateral security politics intensifies in the Asia Pacific, a key question to be resolved is the fate of America's long-standing bilateral alliances in the region. In 1995, Griffith University's Centre for the Study of Australia-Asia Relations (CSAAR) embarked upon a two-year research project to explore the impact of change on the future of the 'San Francisco system' of US bilateral alliances established in the region during the early phase of the Cold War. Associate Professor Russell Trood (Director of CSAAR) and Associate Professor William Tow (of the University of Queensland's Department of Government and Director of its new International Relations and Asian Politics Research Unit) coordinated the study. Substantial funding support was obtained from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Japan Foundation's Centre for Global Partnership and The Asia Foundation. Regional Institutes collaborating in the study included the Institute of Security and International Studies in Bangkok, Thailand; the Institute of Strategic and Developmental Studies, Manila, the Philippines; the Asiatic Research Centre, Seoul, South Korea; and the Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo, Japan.

At an organisational meeting held in Brisbane, Australia, in September 1994, it was agreed by the representatives of each of the participating regional institutes that the project would proceed by way of a series of workshops in each of the other allied countries. These workshops took place between August 1995 and June 1996. The last meeting convened in Tokyo and involved both American and Canadian analysts to facilitate a more comprehensive discussion of the issues raised by the project. An edited volume, containing the project's major findings and separate chapters representing national perspectives from each allied country reviewed by the study, was published and appeared in June 1997.

Despite intermittent threats to its existence, the American bilateral alliance network has remained strategically relevant. This is because it is still viewed in Washington as critical to deterring military attacks against the United States and its Pacific allies, safeguarding US access to critical Asia Pacific sea lanes of communication and ensuring that no hegemonic Eurasian adversary emerges to challenge and isolate American power and influence. Indeed, the Clinton administration has initiated a number of policy measures to adjust these Cold War security arrangements to the contemporary Asia Pacific region's emphasis on strategic reassurance, including a substantial overhaul of the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty (and the adoption of revised defence guidelines which underwrite that treaty) and an upgrading of its bilateral alliance with Australia.

Six broad propositions emerged from the project:

1. There is near unanimity among security analysts in allied countries that the future stability of the region requires the United States to remain strategically engaged in the Asia Pacific. This reflects a general regional anxiety about the prospects for long-term peace and stability in the region and most Asia Pacific states view an American regional security presence as an effective 'hedge' or balancing factor against future regional flashpoints spiralling out of control or against a hegemonic aspirant projecting more aggressive behaviour against themselves.
2. America's Asia Pacific allies continue to value their individual alliances with the United States. In each case, however, these bilateral alliances have changed markedly from when they were first created. Inter-allied relations between Washington and Asia Pacific capitals are now far more complex than in the past, with alliances no longer being seen simply as deterrents against a recognisable threat.
3. In the context of the greater complexity and richer texture in alliance relations, America's allies are increasingly reinterpreting and reordering their own security priorities within the alliance framework. Most notably, each ally is asserting a greater degree of interdependence, with Japan moving to become a permanent voting member of the UN Security Council and projecting a more independent regional diplomacy, South Korea insisting that any reconciliation with the North be on Seoul's terms, and both Thailand the Philippines calibrating security cooperation with the US in the context of their independent relationships with the region's other great powers.
4. There is a clear difference in alliance logic across the Asia Pacific region. In Northeast Asia, the Japan and South Korean alliances are still structured for a high-threat environment and continue to reflect a classic deterrence posture. In Southeast Asia, where threats are less visible, America's allies tend to regard the alliances as contributing to regional strategic reassurance. Multilateralism is thus regarded as a more viable mechanism for encouraging strategic stability than in Northeast Asia.
5. The American alliance system complements the new and emerging structures of regional security. The trend throughout the Asia Pacific is towards a more multi-layered system of regional security: the expansion of ASEAN, the persistence of the United States' bilateral alliance system and the advent of new multilateral structures such as APEC and ARF. All these highlight the growing interconnectedness of the region's security architectures, each serving to create mutually reinforcing mechanisms for stability.
6. All of America's regional alliances are being shaped by public attitudes and issues outside the security arena. Issues of security cannot be insulated from the other dimensions of allies' relations with the United States, namely trade and cultural differences and nationalism that are intensifying with generational change.

The project concluded that in the near term the United States will retain a powerful military presence and active strategic role in the Asia Pacific. Over the next decade, however, US force planners will be confronted with the need to make further force adjustments in the region as pressure on the American defence budget intensifies and as intra-regional security coalition-building accelerates on given issues. Overall, however, fundamental and consistent mutual interests between the United States and its regional allies still appear to outweigh the negatives. These include maintaining regional prosperity, avoiding Japanese remilitarisation, precluding the rise of a hostile regional hegemon and curbing regional security dilemmas which could escalate into local war and expand into general conflicts. Regional allies are also very attracted to affiliating with the American high technology infrastructure for both military and commercial purposes. Washington's broad engagement strategy for Asia will thus be supported, even if America's allies have been often disillusioned by the lack of consistency of the United States in implementing it. The key challenge confronting contemporary American security planners and their Asia Pacific counterparts is to devise ways and means of achieving a stable and orderly transition from dependence on their old alliance relations to a new and more comprehensive regional security community. Otherwise regional security politics will fall by default to managing a more precarious, high-risk set of power-balancing arrangements and architectures which may prove less stable and less predictable than the Cold War bipolar balance of power which it will have replaced.

Associate Professor William Tow,
Director
International Relations and Asian Politics Research Unit
Queensland University

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

ASEAN IN ASIA PACIFIC

On its 30th anniversary ASEAN can look back and claim that the association has made a significant contribution to peace and stability in Southeast Asia, and as such it has also contributed to the peace and stability of the wider Asia Pacific region.

Enlargement of ASEAN

However, ASEAN's role in the future is currently being questioned. An expanded ASEAN - soon to include all ten Southeast Asian countries - is believed to weaken ASEAN's regional and international role as the organisation will have to devote much of its energies and attention to internal ASEAN affairs. The new members are not only 'different' but also 'difficult'. ASEAN will become a less cohesive entity. With ten members it may be much harder for the group to achieve the 'ASEAN way' of consensus building and thus its ability to speak with one voice in regional and international fora will be much reduced.

These problems are recognised by the leaders of ASEAN, but they were determined to expand the membership in realisation of the vision of ASEAN's founding fathers. They believe that a 'One Southeast Asia' has a greater chance of shaping the region's own destiny, and that a united Southeast Asia is better placed to stand up against any hegemonic desires by outside powers. But perhaps, more importantly, they believe that as a group they will be able to cooperate more effectively with the major powers as equals. They believe that this is important for the region's peace and stability in the longer term. This is the reason why the ASEAN leaders have taken the risk to enlarge the membership of the association. The strategic value of an enlarged ASEAN is that it encompasses 10 out of the 14 East Asian countries.

The Agenda for a New ASEAN

The new ASEAN will certainly be different from the old ASEAN. The ASEAN-10 will no longer be an association of only like-minded countries. The new members are different and difficult because they are either under a prolonged threat of a civil war as political differences continue to be resolved by the use of force (Cambodia) or are only hesitantly coming out from self-imposed isolation (Myanmar). This poses is a real challenge for ASEAN. It should be borne in mind that even the old ASEAN has never been taken for granted by its members. When ASEAN was formed, some of its members had only recently ended a political confrontation which could have erupted into military conflict. Economic disparities amongst the members - between Singapore and Indonesia for example - were quite considerable, and economically members tended to compete rather than cooperate with each other.

Over the years, however, a habit of cooperation has developed which has created a greater sense of mutual confidence and trust amongst members. Uncertainty in global economic developments has created a strong incentive to deepen regional economic cooperation. The process of ASEAN cooperation has been aided by an institutional set-up which has evolved gradually but remains simple. However, it has been the strong sense of common destiny and a growing sense of regional identity which have forced the members to strengthen their cooperation. The challenge to the new ASEAN will be greater and the new ASEAN certainly should not be taken for granted. Vietnam was until just a few years ago ASEAN's main adversary. Differences in levels of economic development are even greater now, making a two-tier AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Area) unavoidable. This should not pose a big problem so long as AFTA is not seen as a goal in itself but as only a means to aiding its members to integrate more deeply into the world economy. The economic agenda of the new ASEAN should at least have the following items:

• pooling of resources;
• sharing of experiences; and most importantly,
• a readiness on the part of the old members to extend a helping hand in the development of the new members' economies.

ASEAN and Community Building in Asia Pacific

The new ASEAN will be forced to manage itself because it has assumed an important role in community building in Asia Pacific and it recognises that it has a great stake in the success of these efforts. In APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), ASEAN is in the co-pilot seat. This role was established at the first APEC ministerial meeting in Canberra in 1989 with the agreement that an ASEAN member would host the meeting every other year. APEC is the region's primary economic cooperation vehicle for community building. It is not merely about trade and investment liberalisation but has a much wider agenda that includes a host of facilitation measures as well as economic and technical cooperation. APEC has come a long way within a relatively short time span, and this success is largely due to its adoption of a modality that draws upon ASEAN's experience.

ASEAN plays an equally important role in the ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum), which is the primary politico-security vehicle for confidence building in the region. ASEAN is in the ARF's driver's seat for a number of reasons. Its own experience has resulted in a new thinking, in particular about comprehensive security, which it can offer to the wider Asia Pacific region. In addition, ASEAN has taken the initiative to develop this forum because it recognises that the security of Southeast Asia has become inextricably linked to the security of the wider Asia Pacific region. Such an initiative cannot come from any of the major powers in the region (US, China, or Japan) without causing apprehensions on the part of the others. Thus, as stipulated in the so-called ASEAN Concept Paper of the ARF, 'É.. it has undertaken the obligation to be the primary driving force of the ARF, but ARF requires active participation of all members.' ASEAN will perform this role in close cooperation with other countries in the region.

In conclusion, ASEAN's continued success is important not only for the Southeast Asian region but also for the wider Asia Pacific region. Thus the challenge that ASEAN faces should be seen as a challenge for the entire Asia Pacific region. Indeed Asia Pacific cooperation is the key to ASEAN's success.

Dr Hadi Soesastro
Fellow RSPAS ANU

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA PACIFIC

Human rights have become, and will for the foreseeable future remain, a major issue on the regional agenda. The ARF ministerial meeting earlier this year, coupled with the return of Hong Kong to China and events in Myanmar and Cambodia, have brought to the surface suspicions and frustrations which have long been simmering. These tensions are often attributed to the cultural divide that allegedly separates 'Asian' from 'Western' values. This debate, conducted largely between a handful of governments - usually the United States on one side and China, Singapore, Malaysia on the other - has thus far produced much heat but little light.

Unless handled with care the human rights issue could damage bilateral relationships and place considerable stress on the region's recently established and still fragile multilateral processes and institutions. If, on the other hand, it is handled with imagination, the region could experience a steady improvement in the observance of human rights, in ways which deepen and extend the culture of regional cooperation.

Several key principles should guide the human rights dialogue in Asia Pacific:

• In human rights universality does not mean uniformity. The universality of human rights does not require Asian societies to adopt the Westminster system of government or the provisions of the US Constitution.
• If human rights dialogue is to be universal, it must engage the entire international community. This means all civilisations and cultures, but also a wide cross-section of each society's religious and intellectual traditions.
• Asia civilisations have much to contribute to a regional dialogue, in particular:
  1. a richer conception of political community which more adequately connects human rights and human needs;
  2. a more effective balance between rights and obligations;
  3. a keener appreciation of the link between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights; and
  4. a healthy rejection of Western arrogance and an interest in exploring the possibilities of inter-civilisational dialogue;
• The function of governments is as much to coordinate as to set the human rights agenda. Perhaps their main role will be to establish and strengthen the channels of communication and negotiation both within and between states.

To promote such a regional dialogue Australia could take or support a number of initiatives:

• Human rights diplomacy, to be effective, must be grounded in a rich human rights culture within Australia. A well coordinated and adequately resourced human rights community awareness campaign is needed, accompanied by a comprehensive education policy designed to enhance Australia's knowledge and understanding of the languages, history and cultures of its Asian neighbours. (This might include the establishment of a Centre for Inter-Civilisational Dialogue).
• While bilateral interventions can serve a useful purpose, the emphasis should shift towards multilateral diplomacy. Sanctions or conditionalities on aid and economic relations should be invoked as an absolutely last resort.
• Australia should subject its own human rights performance to international scrutiny, particularly in relation to such contentious issues as Aboriginal rights and the treatment of refugees.
• All governments in the region should be encouraged to develop their own National Action Plans, identifying key human rights deficiencies and establishing clear goals, strategies and a timetable for expected improvements.
• A track-two human rights regional forum should be established, comprised of academics, community leaders, NGO representatives, UN experts, business organisations, with government officials participating in their private capacity.
• A Regional Centre for Human Rights Dialogue and Cooperation should be created to assist governments in promoting education, training and research across the range of individual and collective rights.
• An Asia Pacific Regional forum should be established to foster cooperation among the region's national human rights institutions and between them and UN human rights organisations.
• An Asia Pacific Charter of Human Rights should be promoted to bring a regional perspective to international negotiations, and to identify regional priorities such as the elimination of torture, the rights of indigenous peoples and the rights of women.

Joseph A. Camilleri
Professor of Politics, La Trobe University

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

THE AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE STUDIES CENTRE

The Australian Defence Studies Centre, is part of the University College of the University of New South Wales within the Australian Defence Force Academy. The Centre was established in 1987 as a policy-oriented research centre. It has a permanent staff of four and draws on the expertise found in the Schools of University College and on outside experts to support its activities. The Centre conducts research, convenes conferences, publishes works on defence and security issues, and supports the graduate Defence Studies Program.

The Centre relies on modest support from the University College but is expected to be largely self-funding in terms of its program of work. Its Development Manager, Colonel Peter Rose (Retd) plays a central role in seeking funding and sponsorship for the Centre's research and conference activities.

Research focus

The focus of research is on regional defence and security; Australian defence industry; defence project management; defence procurement; defence personnel issues; peacekeeping; law of armed conflict; maritime security; and military history. Research is conducted by long and short term visiting fellows to the Centre, the staff of University College, and individuals with an interest in the Centre's activities. The Centre hosts visiting fellows from Australia and overseas, including Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, and the United States.

The results of research are published in monographs, working papers or special reports. A catalogue of the Centre's publications and its activities program can be obtained from the internet (ADSC Home Page). The breadth of research conducted by the Centre is indicated by recent publications which include: In Quest of High Tech Power - The Modernisation of China's Military by Dr You Ji; The Navy and Regional Engagement edited by Jack McCaffrie and Richard Sherwood; Environmentally Responsible Defence edited by Peter Crabb, Julie Kesby and Laurie Olive; Terrorism and the 2000 Olympics edited by Alan Thompson; Defence Project Management: Pitfalls and Pointers, Vol 2, edited by Alan Hinge and Stefan Markowski; and Preparing for Australia's 'Military After Next': The Price Report and a 'New Model' Australian Defence Force Academy by Graeme Cheeseman and Robert A. Hall.

The Defence Studies Program offers a Masters degree or graduate diploma in Defence Studies. The program has a number of courses devoted to East Asian security matters. It attracts defence force officers and Defence officials, members of other government departments, civilians, and foreign military personnel. Nearly 200 students have graduated from the program including 34 foreign students, mostly from Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Regional students are normally from the armed forces or they are defence officials.

Links with the Region

The Centre has developed a number of formal and informal regional linkages. Associate Professor Anthony Bergin, Director of the Centre has led a number of recent ADSC delegations to the Philippines (the Office of strategic and Special Studies), Malaysia (Malaysian Strategic Research Centre), and Indonesia (The Centre for Strategic and International Studies). Meetings have also been held with institutes in China and South Korea.

Associate Professor Carlyle Thayer is Head of the Centre's regional security program and has been active in attracting regional visiting scholars and focusing the Centre's conference and publications program on regional issues. His research focus for this past year has centred on two main areas: Vietnamese foreign, defence and security policy, and problems associated with the expansion of ASEAN. He is currently writing a book, The Armed Forces of Vietnam, commissioned for The Armed Forces of Asia Series by Allen & Unwin.

Associate Professor Hugh Smith is Head of the Centre's peacekeeping program. Last year he convened a workshop on 'The Sociology of Armed Forces in Southeast Asia' at the Centre which was attended by representatives from a number of Southeast Asian countries, as well as New Zealand, the United States, India and Taiwan.

Dr Stefan Markowski, a noted economist, heads the Centre's Defence Industry and Logistics program. Under his leadership the Centre last year convened an international conference on defence procurement issues. The Centre, through Dr Markowski, has plans underway to develop regular Asia Pacific meetings on defence acquisition issues and develop a data base on the subject.

Mr John McFarlane, a long term visiting fellow from the Australian Federal Police, is a Convenor and Australian Co-Chair of the CSCAP Study Group on Transnational Crime. This involves regular liaison with regional security and law enforcement bodies. Mr McFarlane is also involved in planning an ADSC conference in 1998 on the Torres Strait and PNG security.

At an institutional level, the Centre has been represented at meetings of regional think tanks, such as the ASEAN ISIS, and second track meetings. Two workshops have been held with the Office of Strategic and Special Studies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The first workshop was held in Manila in 1996. The workshop discussed national defence force planning issues and defence industry development along with proposals to develop cooperation on defence and security matters. A second workshop was held in Darwin in May 1997 and discussed regional security issues and the structure and employment of reserve forces in each country. The Centre hopes that the valuable linkages developed in these workshops can be sustained.

Currently, the Centre is planning a number of short courses of interest mainly to the ADF. Some of the courses will cover broad Asia Pacific security matters. The first course is on the subject of practical guidance in dealing with parliamentary defence committees.

Over recent years the ADSC has pursued, through its conference, research and publications program, a focus on matters broadly related to Australian defence and regional security. The Centre's 10th Anniversary Conference 'Australian Security in a New Era - Reform or Revolution?' on 11-12 November 1997 will specifically examine such issues as the regional security outlook and regional defence spending. For conference details please phone the Office Manager on (02) 62688849.

Associate Professor Anthony Bergin
Director, Australian Defence Studies Centre

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

THE CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF AUSTRALIA-ASIA RELATIONS (CSAAR) AND THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND ASIAN POLITICS RESEARCH UNIT (IRAPRU)

The University of Queensland's Department of Government and Griffith University's Centre for the Study of Australia-Asia Relations (CSAAR) have worked closely over the past four to five years on projects related to selected regional security issues. Associate Professor Russell Trood, Director of CSAAR, and Associate Professor William Tow have coordinated most of these activities but have worked to ensure that a wide body of Australian and overseas scholars and policy analysts have been involved as well.

Among their most significant ventures has been the forging of ties with various Asian research institutes under the sponsorship of the 'Australian-Asian Linkages Program' sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Three separate projects have been conducted under this program: a major two year study dealing with reconciling US bilateral alliances with evolving multilateral security arrangements in the region (see this issue page 3); reciprocal hosting of workshops on Sino-Australian security relations with China's Centre for Peace and Development Studies (in Beijing and Brisbane); and an ongoing project on Australian-Korean security relations coordinated with Korea University's Ilmin International Relations Institute. Other recent collaborative projects include organising a major workshop on ASEAN policies and relations (convening in Brisbane during December 1996) and assisting the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) in organising a major conference on Australian-American relations (November 1995). Several volumes have already been published or will be published as a result of such collaboration.

In late 1997, the University of Queensland's Department of Government founded the International Relations and Asian Politics Research Institute (IRAPRU). Dr Tow has been nominated to become IRAPRU's first Director and this new research unit plans to continue working closely with CSAAR to strengthen Queensland's profile as a major centre of international relations and security studies. To this end, CSAAR's Trood has been nominated to serve on IRAPRU's inaugural Advisory Board.

Both research centres have designated their affiliation with CSCAP as a key component of their future program agendas. CSAAR can be contacted at tel: (61 7) 3875 7353; fax: (61 7) 3875 7956 or e-mail: csaar@ais.gu.edu.au. CSAAR's Home Page.

IRAPRU can be reached at: tel. (61 7) 3365-2635/3042; fax: (61 7) 3365-1388; email: ; website: IRAPRU Home Page

Associate Professor William Tow
Director
International Relations and Asian Politics Research Unit
Queensland University

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (RIAP)

Established in 1987, the Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific (RIAP) is a foundation of the University of Sydney. The primary purpose of the Institute is to facilitate linkage between the expertise of the University and the tertiary sector in general, and the needs of the Australian public and private sectors.

The Institute's major focus is human resource management and development in the Asia Pacific region. However, increasingly RIAP's clients are seeking advice and research-based analysis on issues such as risk assessment, and the geopolitical dimensions influencing business and trade. 'Comprehensive security' is becoming a major interest of certain export-focused service industries such as insurance, financial services and legal firms.

While the main client base for the Institute is the Australian private sector, RIAP also conducts policy advice and consultancies for Australian and regional governments. It has for instance provided cross-cultural training for members of the Royal Australian Air Force.

The Institute boasts an extensive data base of approximately 600 Asia Pacific experts who can provide training and research services for RIAP clients. RIAP's research networks are enhanced through its ongoing role representing Australia in the Human Resources Development Working group of APEC, where barriers to trade facilitation and liberalisation are core issues.

For further information please contact the Director, Dr Rikki Kersten by phone: (02) 9290-3233 or fax (02) 9262-4819.

Dr Rikki Kersten
Director, RIAP

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

THE ARF TRACK TWO CONFERENCE ON PREVENTIVE DIPLOMACY, SINGAPORE, 9-11 SEPTEMBER 1997

The Third ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Track Two Conference on Preventive Diplomacy, jointly sponsored by the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS) Singapore, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in the United Kingdom, was held in Singapore from 9-11 September 1997. The proposal for the conference had earlier been endorsed by the ARF Senior Official's Meeting in Langkawi, Malaysia, from 18-20 May 1997 and welcomed by the ARF Ministers at their Fourth meeting in Subang Jaya, Malaysia, on 27 July 1997.

The purpose of the Singapore conference was to explore and develop some of the ideas already advanced at two previous seminars on preventive diplomacy held in Seoul and Paris, as well as in a series of CSCAP meetings. The particular focus of the Singapore conference was to identify concrete measures which might be adopted by the ARF in moving to Stage Two (Preventive Diplomacy) of the ARF process. Two representatives from each ARF member country were present - one from the respective Foreign Ministries and the other, a 'non-official', with expertise in preventive diplomacy. The two Australian representatives were Rosemary Greaves, Director of the Regional Security Section in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Alan Dupont from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

A diverse range of papers and proposals was discussed by the conference at the following core sessions:

The European Union Experience in Preventive Diplomacy

The meeting addressed the experience of the EU in preventive diplomacy, which provided examples spanning CBMs and preventive diplomacy. It was suggested that key factors influencing the efficacy of the EU's preventive diplomacy were the particular circumstances of conflict, the will of the actors to engage in preventive diplomacy beyond third party mediation, and the degree of incentive for parties concerned. Much of the discussion focused on the varying applicability of the EU experience to circumstances in the Asia Pacific.

Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia

The meeting exchanged views on the prospects for further efforts in confidence building and preventive diplomacy in Southeast Asia and focused in particular on the South China Sea and Cambodia. The meeting noted the continuing efforts of regional preventive diplomacy in addressing the South China Sea issue through norm-building, and also acknowledged the contribution of the workshops organised by Indonesia on the South China Sea. The meeting affirmed the importance of bilateral negotiations and the useful role which third parties might play in facilitating preventive diplomacy.

The Chinese Perspective on Preventive Diplomacy

In response to the presentation of the Chinese perspective, the meeting noted the importance of CBMs in the entire process of preventive diplomacy in the Asia Pacific and agreed that bilateral and multilateral CBMs should be explored and exploited more fully by the states in the region. The meeting focussed on the importance of consensus in the practice of preventive diplomacy. However, it accepted that in certain circumstances, the good offices of third parties could be valuable in helping to resolve disputes.

Preventive Diplomacy and Map Exercises

The meeting was briefed on the nature of map exercises. They were defined as simulation exercises designed to enhance multilateral understanding and cooperation in crisis. As such, they were deemed to be good examples of cooperative measures to foster comprehensive security.

Preventive Diplomacy: Freedom of Navigation

The meeting discussed the term 'Freedom of Navigation' and 'Navigational Rights', and the possibility of an ARF declaration of the latter as a CBM. Given the diversity of views, it was recommended that the issues raised be discussed in the CSCAP Working Group on Maritime Security.

Preventive Diplomacy: Towards Track One

The meeting discussed options which would enable the ARF to enhance its preventive diplomacy role. To that end, it considered:

• the role of the ARF chair;
• the possibility of intensifying the consultative process at the level of officials;
• drawing on UN experience;
• the provision of training; and
• early warning capabilities.

At the conclusion of the meeting the Co-Chairs agreed to forward the following proposals to the current Co-Chairs of the Inter-Sessional Group on CBMs (Brunei and Australia) as well as to the ARF SOM for their consideration:

• the codification of norms regulating international behaviour in the region;
• a preventive diplomacy role for the ARF chair or other third parties in providing good offices in certain circumstances;
• an exploration of the relevance of Sino-Indian and Sino-Russian experience in CBMs for preventive diplomacy in the Asia Pacific region;
• multilateral cooperation as a form of preventive diplomacy on transnational issues such as drug trafficking, the shipment, storage and disposal of nuclear waste, and major movements of population, where directly linked to security;
• an annual Security Outlook to be discussed in Track One, but produced at a track two level; and
• a regional early warning capability.

The Co-Chairs also agreed to forward the following proposals to the current Co-Chairs of CSCAP, Noordin Sopiee and Nobuo Matsunaga, with the suggestion that CSCAP explore further:

• the utility and feasibility of map (simulation) exercises; and
• the issues raised in the paper on freedom of navigation.

While the meeting was useful in furthering some of the ideas already advanced at previous seminars on preventive diplomacy, it also demonstrated that a considerable gap still exists between some of the participants about the purpose and efficacy of preventive diplomacy in the Asia Pacific region. Non-traditional security issues, such as illegal migration, transnational crime and the environment emerged as some of the most promising areas for developing a preventive diplomacy regime. However, there is clearly a long way to go, and future meetings would benefit from having a specific set of practical measures tabled for detailed discussion.

Alan Dupont
Fellow
SDSC, RSPAS, ANU

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

CSCAP STUDY GROUP ON TRANSNATIONAL CRIME

In accordance with a resolution of the Sixth Meeting of the CSCAP Steering Committee, held in Canberra between 8 - 10 December 1996, the first meeting of the CSCAP Study Group on Transnational Crime was held in Singapore on 25-26 March 1997, under the Joint Chairmanship of Thailand and Australia. Unfortunately, due to other commitments, the Philippine Co-Chair, Dr Carolina Hernandez, was unable to attend the meeting.

This was the first CSCAP meeting to deal specifically with the issue of transnational crime. It will be recalled that in the past, transnational crime has been one of the topics subsumed within the scope of the Working Group on Concepts of Comprehensive and Cooperative Security. However, with the agreement of the Co-Chairs of that Working Group (Malaysia and New Zealand), it was agreed at the Sixth Steering Committee Meeting that a study group should be established, with Australia, the Philippines and Thailand as Co-Chairs, 'to consider the issues involved in transnational crime and its security implications for the region.'

Widespread interest in the Study Group

There was good support for this Study Group, with nine countries actively involved in the first meeting. This was particularly pleasing in view of the fact that most members would not have budgeted for this additional meeting. Indeed, a number of members advised that they would have attended if the travel funds had been available. The indications are that there is a genuine interest in and need for this topic to be covered by CSCAP and that more members are likely to participate in future.

Those participating in the first meeting of the Study Group came from a number of disciplines, ranging from strategic analysis and political science to diplomacy and operational policing. It was particularly pleasing to note, therefore, that there was a high degree of consensus among those attending on what were the key transnational crime trends affecting the region and that a worthwhile series of research projects could be undertaken to better understand and articulate the security implications for the region posed by transnational crime.

Proposals for research

It was also pleasing to note that we were able to obtain commitments from a number of the members present to undertake research projects on behalf of the Study Group over the next six to twelve months, with a view to having the papers arising from such projects published in due course. It was also agreed that there would be an exchange of papers within the Study Group to ensure that whoever picked up the responsibility for a particular project was provided with the widest range of information available on the topic.

In addition to the topics which individual members have already agreed to address, contact has been made with a number of other members concerning projects which they might like to undertake. What we have in mind for the future is to produce two series of papers. The first series would attempt to define and explain the problems posed by transnational crime within the region while the second would cover what initiatives are being taken at the regional and international levels to counter these problems.

Consistency with broader regional and global initiatives

The Study Group agreed that the activities of CSCAP in the transnational crime area should be generally consistent with, and in support of, the approach taken by bodies, or initiatives, such as the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, the World Ministerial Conference on Organised Transnational Crime and its Global Action Plan, and the OECD Recommendations on Bribery in International Business Transactions. In recent years there has been a much greater appreciation at the international level of the strategic impact of transnational crime in all its manifestations. A number of valuable initiatives have been taken to encourage global cooperation and other practical measures to deal with the problem.

The Study Group also noted that in recent years there has been a far greater body of serious academic research into non-conventional national security threats, including transnational crime, terrorism and other forms of low intensity conflict.

A CSCAP Transnational Crime Working Group

It was the unanimous view of the Study Group that the threat of transnational crime is of such a nature and dimension that CSCAP should continue to give serious attention to this issue. Whilst recognising that some of the matters covered by 'transnational crime' might fall within the scope of interests of the existing CSCAP Working Groups, the Study Group considered that transnational crime is sufficiently complex and potentially serious enough to warrant its own Working Group.

Recent Developments

Since reporting to the Seventh Steering Committee in Singapore in June 1997, there have been a number of major developments affecting the Study Group.

Interest in the Group from CSCAP Member Committees has grown. Indonesia has nominated a retired Police Brigadier as its nominee to attend the Second Meeting of the Study Group. Canada has also indicated a keen interest in becoming more active in the Study Group. As a result of an approach by Professor David Dewitt, the new CSCAP Canada Co-Chair, Dr Margaret Beare of the Centre for the Study of Organised Crime and Corruption at York University, Toronto, has agreed to undertake a study of the issues behind illegal immigration in the Asia Pacific region. Professor Graeme Hugo of the Geography Department at Adelaide University and Associate Professor Jojie Tigno of the Department of Political Science at the University of the Philippines have also indicated an interest in supporting this project.

Dr Liu Xuecheng of the China Centre for International Studies is anxious to become more involved in the activities of the Study Group, although he has not yet indicated what research project he would be prepared to undertake.

Professor Gennady Chufrin of the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies has also indicated an interest in becoming more involved and has offered to provide a paper on drug trafficking as a national security issue.

There was some criticism from the United States at the Seventh Steering Committee meeting that the Study Group had not committed itself to any study of terrorism within the region. Since that time we have written to US-CSCAP providing them with details of some 20 American academics who specialise in research into transnational crime and terrorism, in the hope that the United States will be able to become more actively involved in the Study Group, particularly in the field of terrorist research.

In addition to the papers on money laundering and transnational crime as a security issue which Australia has undertaken to provide, a further paper is being developed summarising the major initiatives which have been undertaken at the national and regional levels to counter the spread of transnational crime and encouraging international and regional cooperation in this area. This will be a useful background paper supporting the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on International Drug Control in June 1988, as well as providing advice on international protocols to those countries which have recently become new members of ASEAN.

Transnational Crime and the ARF

It will also be recalled that at the Third Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum in Jakarta in July 1996, it was stated that:

'The Ministers also agreed to consider at the next ARF meetings, the question of drug trafficking and related transnational issues, such as economic crimes, including money laundering, which could constitute threats to the security of the countries of the region.'

In fact, the issues of illicit drugs and terrorism were handled under the agenda item on 'Global Issues' at the 13th ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference (PMC) Plenary Session on 28 July in Kuala Lumpur. Thailand spoke on its work with the United Nations Drug Control Program on counter-narcotics efforts in the Golden Triangle region. Thailand also mentioned that it had recently passed money laundering laws. Burma spoke about its efforts in eradicating drug production on its territory and on money laundering issues. Other matters covered included the rising problem of the production and abuse of amphetamine-based narcotics in the region, and the need for regional cooperation in relation to combating organised crime and money laundering. Canada spoke strongly in support of the PMC continuing to take an active interest in 'the drugs problem' as a transnational security problem, particularly as both the drug-producing and drug-consuming countries are represented at the ASEAN PMC meeting.

On the terrorist issue, there was brief discussion, led by Singapore, on counter-terrorist coordination arrangements through regular meetings of security and police agencies.

Second meeting

The second meeting of the Study Group was held in Bangkok on 10 - 11 October and attended by 26 delegates from 10 countries. The meeting considered seven papers which were prepared as a result of the decisions at the first meeting. These papers covered transnational crime as a security or strategic issue, money laundering methodologies, illegal immigration, smuggling of small arms within the region, technology crime and multilateral initiatives to counter transnational criminality. These papers will be published in the first half of 1998. In addition, Thailand and the Philippines agreed to coordinate the Study Group's analysis of regional drug production and trafficking.

The meeting also identified a number of areas of regional criminal activity which would be given priority in the future work of the Group.

It was the unanimous view of the Study Group that a recommendation should be put to the CSCAP Steering Committee in Tokyo that the Study Group should now be established as a full CSCAP Working Group.

The next meeting of the Study/Working Group will be held in Manila in late May 1998. John McFarlane
Australian Federal Police/Australian Defence Studies Centre, ADFA

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

REPORT ON THE CSCAP CSBMS WORKING GROUP MEETING, WASHINGTON DC, 21-23 MAY 1997

This workshop, chaired as usual by Kwa Chong Guan of CSCAP-Singapore and Ralph Cossa, USCSCAP dealt with two broad issue areas: energy and security in the Asia Pacific and preventive diplomacy. A third issue area, the regional arms register, which had been discussed in previous meetings has been dropped from the agenda since there was little sign of regional interest in the idea. Indeed the contrary was the case.

Peter Hayes of Nautilus Pacific Research gave a wide-ranging paper on regional energy and security issues focusing in particular on nuclear energy problems and opportunities. This session provided a useful background for another discussion of the PacAtom/Asiatom proposal, which the Working Group has been considering for some time. The consensus within the group remains that while PacAtom may serve a useful non-proliferation role eventually, initially the focus should be on nuclear safety issues.

The third session looked at cooperative monitoring of various regimes - which might include nuclear safety as well as non-proliferation regimes. This session was largely given over to a presentation by the Cooperative Monitoring Center. The fourth session discussed prospects for the future and it is noteworthy in this regard that the next session of the CSBM Working which is to be held in Japan at the end of October will focus primarily on the prospects for a regional safety regime.

The second theme of the meeting was preventive diplomacy and the extent to which the ARF can take on a preventive diplomacy role. This occupied the three final sessions of the meeting, but no formal proposals have yet been drawn up.

Professor Andrew Mack
International Relations, ANU

Note from CSBM WG Co-Chair Ralph Cossa re the next meeting

The next meeting of the CSCAP International Working Group on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures will be held in Tokyo on 29 October - 1 November 1997. The workshop will be dedicated to the PACATOM question, and will aim to further refine the concept and better define what is meant by PACATOM.

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

CSCAP MARITIME COOPERATION WORKING GROUP MEETING, BANGKOK, 30 MAY - 1 JUNE 1997

The Third meeting of the CSCAP Maritime Cooperation Working Group was held in Bangkok 30 May - 1 June. The meeting was conducted with the support of ISIS Thailand and the South East Asian Program in Ocean Law, Policy and Management (SEAPOL), and co-chaired by Sam Bateman and Ambassador Hasjim Djalal of Indonesia (in the absence of RADM Sunardi). The proceedings of the meeting will be published in similar form to those of previous meetings.

This was the largest meeting so far of the Working Group with 30 participants from 16 member CSCAPs and about 18 Thai observers. CSCAP China (with four participants) attended for the first time. Also, two experts from Taiwan attended as 'other participants' following the CSCAP Guidelines for the participation of Taiwanese experts in Working Group meetings. Europe, Mongolia and North Korea were the only CSCAP member committees not represented.

The objectives of the meeting were to:

• review progress with the Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation (draft CSCAP Memo No.4);
• contribute to the development of new ideas about the cooperative management of regional seas and oceans areas;
• identify present and planned activities in areas of regional maritime cooperation such as shipping, resource management, pollution prevention, marine safety, and law and order at sea, which have benefits for regional security (that is, 'value added'); and
• share national and sub-regional perspectives of cooperative oceans and marine management.

National and regional arrangements for oceans/marine management

The overall aim of the meeting was to explore new ideas of preventive diplomacy and confidence-building in the general area of regional maritime cooperation, particularly in the enclosed and semi-enclosed seas of Southeast and Northeast Asia, where maritime activity is increasing and cooperation so important. To establish a basis of knowledge for the achievement of this aim, individual countries adjacent to these seas were invited to present short papers on national arrangements for oceans/marine management.

These national presentations addressed how each country manages its maritime interests such as shipping, marine environmental protection, and fisheries, with a particular focus on national arrangements for undertaking surveillance and enforcement at sea. The objective was to see how different countries manage their maritime interests, which may overlap those of their neighbours, and to stimulate new ideas for regional maritime cooperation. All invited CSCAPs made these presentations (except Russia).

The opportunity was also taken to discuss existing arrangements for regional maritime cooperation and the experiences of other regions in the world with similar experiences of cooperation and geographical situations. Papers covered the Caribbean and the South Pacific, as well as an up-date on the South China Sea workshops from Canada and the situation in Southeast Asia by SEAPOL.

Overall these papers confirmed the scope for useful work in this field to be undertaken by the Working Group. Given the lack of agreed maritime boundaries in East Asian seas and the number of conflicting/overlapping maritime claims in the region, the management of regional seas and the development of new management regimes offer considerable potential for preventive diplomacy and confidence-building. This also involves building links between the concepts and forums of cooperative and comprehensive security.

The Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation

The Guidelines for Regional Maritime Cooperation were reviewed at the Bangkok meeting with three main problem areas being raised, mainly by the Chinese delegation. These were definitions, sovereignty issues and naval cooperation.

After the meeting, the draft CSCAP Memorandum No.4 and the Guidelines were revised by a small drafting group comprising the Co-Chairs and Dr Ian Townsend-Gault (Canada). As far as possible, the amendments take account of the concerns expressed at the meeting. The revised drafts of the Memorandum and Guidelines were subsequently recirculated to all member CSCAPs and it is now hoped that the Memorandum with the Guidelines will be published soon.

The objective will be to work hard to gain acceptance of the Guidelines as they provide an excellent charter for regional maritime cooperation and strongly accord with the new approaches to oceans management set out in UNCLOS, UNCED and other conventions and state practice.

Forthcoming Meetings

The next (4th) meeting of the Maritime Cooperation Working Group will be held in Tokyo in November. It will address cooperative security aspects of shipping and seaborne trade in the Asia Pacific region. Planning for the meeting is proceeding with the support of CSCAP Japan.

The 5th meeting of the Group to be held in 1998 will return to the topic of the management of regional seas and regime-building.

Sam Bateman
Centre for Maritime Policy
University of Wollongong

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

CSCAP COMPREHENSIVE AND COOPERATIVE SECURITY WORKING GROUP MEETING, KUALA LUMPUR, 17-18 SEPTEMBER 1997

The Comprehensive Security Working Group met in Kuala Lumpur on 15-16 September, co-chaired by Mr Mohamed Jawhar Hassan (CSCAP Malaysia) and H.E. Ambassador Shi Chunlai (CSCAP China). Most CSCAP participants were represented, including Europe and Russia. Topics addressed included:

• Challenges to Environmental Security (Malaysia, New Zealand and Russia);
• Food Security (China and Japan);
• Globalisation and the Retreat of the State (Europe); and
• Energy and Security (Vietnam).

Dr Greg Austin of the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at ANU represented AUS-CSCAP, and presented a paper on 'Marine Resource Disputes: Political, Legal and Military Underpinnings of the Emerging Order'.

Given the smoke haze that had blanketed Kuala Lumpur for some time, there was some discussion at the meeting about the lack of regional mechanisms to cope with environmental security emergencies. The papers on environmental security were well received for their comprehensiveness and focus on recommendations for action. In particular, the point was reasserted that governments should pay more attention to measuring and monitoring the depletion of social wealth through exploitation of resources and pollution. A call was made for more active preventive diplomacy for environmental threats. The ASEAN Regional Forum was suggested as a possible avenue for response to environmental threats, although APEC does have a sub-committee or working group on the environment. The larger countries such as Japan, China and the US are working together fairly well, but the responsive capacities of the smaller countries probably needed considerable augmentation.

The discussions on food security and maritime resource security highlighted the relatively greater capacity of China to feed itself and fuel itself compared with other countries in the region. For example, China had made massive gains in food production and offshore fisheries production, while some neighbours had suffered declining capacities in these areas. The resulting insecurities caused by these countervailing trends, regardless of national strategic posture, were probably worth addressing. One presenter argued that China's strength and power were magnified in the perceptions of some of its neighbours merely by these huge discrepancies in resource endowment.

Dr Greg Austin
RSPAS, ANU

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

FORTHCOMING SEMINAR ON ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY, CANBERRA, 20 NOVEMBER 1997

The AIIA, in association with the US Information Service, will host a one-day seminar on environmental security in Canberra on Thursday 20 November. The seminar will be held at two venues - the USIS office in the National Press Club Building, National Circuit, Barton, for a WORLDNET presentation, and thereafter at AIIA National Headquarters, Stephen House, 32 Thesiger Court, Deakin. (For information about the seminar please contact the AIIA and not USIS.)

Program Details

Please note that, because the timing of the WORLDNET has not yet been finalised, any timings in this program are indicative only. Confirmed timings and program details will be sent to registrants and may also be obtained in due course from the AIIA, tel. (02) 6282 2133, fax (02) 6285 2334, and email: ceo@aiia.asn.au

THURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER 1997

Morning session at USIS: 'Environmental Security: the View from the Pentagon', speaker to be advised, presentation by WORLDNET.

Thereafter at AIIA:

'What is Environmental Security? A Conceptual Overview'

Dr Lorraine Elliott, The Faculties, ANU.

'Environmental Security in East Asia: An Overview of Issues in this Region'

Mr Alan Dupont, SDSC, ANU.

'Making the Connection: Environmental Degradation and Security Issues in this region: Some Critical Issues':

• WATER - Dr Peter Gleick, Co-founder and President, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, California;
• CLIMATE CHANGE - Professor Ian Noble, Professor of Global Change Research, ANU; and
• DEFORESTATION - Dr Peter Dauvergne, International Relations, ANU.

'Environmental Security: Implications for Australia':

• Military implications - Major Ian Finlayson, CDF Fellow, Australian Defence Studies Centre, ADFA; and
• Foreign Policy Implications - Professor Stuart Harris

Registration

Please contact the AIIA National Office for details

Dr Lesley Jackman
Australian Institute of International Affairs
Stephen House 32 Thesiger Court
Deakin ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA
tel: 61 2 6282 2133
fax: 61 2 6285 2334

Back to Table of Contents
Back to AUS-CSCAP Home Page

This WWW server is provided by the Coombs Computing Unit, Research Schools of Social Sciences & Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University, Canberra.

Maintainer: Stephen Bates (auscscap@anu.edu.au), ANU, Canberra

Copyright & copy; 1997 by Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU. This Web page may be linked to any other Web pages. Contents may not be altered.

URL Auscnws5.html

[ Asian Studies WWW VL ] [ Coombsweb ] [ Social Sciences WWW WL]