The Jakarta Post
Tue, 05/31/2011
As the deadline for achieving the ASEAN Community by 2015 approaches, it is unfortunate to see how the oldest regional organization in Southeast Asia is still struggling with “classical” problems, such as conflicts over territorial issues.
While some disputes have been settled, most of them were referred to the International Court of Justice rather than regional dispute settlement mechanisms.
On the other hand, many are still being “managed” so as not to lead to military clashes, while in fact those issues are burning coals swept under the carpet.
The ongoing series of armed conflicts between Cambodia’s and Thailand’s militaries are a crucial test for ASEAN’s credibility and commitment to become a more integrated and rule-based community and to play a significant role in the global community post-2015.
At the same time it also challenges the success of Indonesia’s chairmanship this year. While Indonesia’s initiative to mediate the two parties has so far ended in deadlock, it has come up with a proposal to establish an ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR).
This commitment has been stated in the ASEAN Leaders’ Joint Statement on the Establishment of an ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation released on May 8, 2011, that tasks ASEAN’s foreign ministers to submit recommendations to the 19th ASEAN Summit in November 2011 for consideration.
Until now, ASEAN member states relied more on informal mechanisms, i.e., self-restraint, practices of musyawarah and mufakat (consultation and consensus), third-party mediation and “agreeing to disagree” for later settlement.
The member states also believe that the extensive number of meetings held by ASEAN will lead to closer interaction that will smooth the consultation process toward achieving consensus.
ASEAN member countries are still until now very much reluctant to utilize the formal mechanism, which is the High Council as mandated in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC).
The reason is still unchanging: The concern over potential violations of the non-interference principle upheld by all ASEAN member states.
Any intervention in the form of mediation or other third-party involvement from any ASEAN member state is unlikely to be welcomed since there is always fear that the mediator will not be neutral.
This idea of an AIPR was invoked in the APSC Blueprint in 2010, which called for the consideration of the establishment of the AIPR.
There was no time limit added to this statement; thus Indonesia’s proposal to follow up on this proposal is actually fast.
In this early stage, descriptions of this institute can only be gained from the comments made by high-ranking officials from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry.
Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said that the institute would comprise think-tanks or second-track institutions across the Southeast Asia region.
According to Marty, not all issues can be solved at the governmental level. Therefore, the institute will allow a process where any conflict can be responded to through non-state mechanisms. The institute will not involve a military element and limit participation to institutions from ASEAN member states.
Regarding its functions, there is still a question as to whether this institute will provide consultation for countries seeking peaceful solutions only for inter-state or also intra-state conflicts.
It is emphasized that the implementation of the recommendations would depend on individual countries since those recommendations would not be legally binding with the disputing parties, while they might be applied at the global level.
In terms of work, it is expected from the institute that the think-tanks would share their experiences based on best practices and lessons learned and based on that knowledge issue recommendations in accordance with their respective countries’ experience and characteristics.
Through these practices, according to Marty, the role of the AIPR would not be perceived as challenging the non-interference principle embraced by ASEAN; in fact, the mention of this idea in the APSC blueprint has supported such an argument.
First of all, the idea to establish the AIPR, while still far from providing an immediate solution to managing conflicts among ASEAN members, should be welcomed and supported. The establishment of the AIPR should be seen as another entry point for engagement and participation from non-governmental elements in ASEAN mechanisms.
At the ideal level, the AIPR is best to develop both research and practical and “direct-result” activities (mediation, training, etc.) due to the high intensity of conflicts in the region.
However, looking at the evolutionary process which has become a common practice in ASEAN and also considering the strict adherence to non-interference principles, a first step to establish a more research-oriented institution is appreciated.
Yet, it should also be scrutinized further whether the result will be provided only to the relevant parties (those which are directly involve in conflict) or is open for public access.
Furthermore, it is important that the institute is given the authority to collect necessary and accurate information related to the conflict.
In this regard, the non-interference principle should be somehow modified.
While the members of the AIPR will be limited to non-governmental institutions from ASEAN member states only, networking as well as cooperation from outside the region should be welcomed, especially to learn from similiar,
but more advanced and experienced institutions.
Finally, the issue of funding might be a challenging one since ASEAN is still struggling with its limited budget.
While it is fully aware that this idea is not a panacea to provide a direct solution to the ongoing conflicts in Southeast Asia, nevertheless, the institution is very much expected to play a significant role in preventing disputes turning into armed conflicts and to build national and regional capacities to address conflicts in a constructive manner.
The writer is a researcher in the Department of Politics and International Relations, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta.
No comments:
Post a Comment