Assessing Track 2 Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific Region A CSCAP Reader Edited by Desmond Ball Kwa Chong Guan STRATEGIC AND DEFENCE STUDIES CENTRE Assessing Track 2 Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific Region A CSCAP Reader Edited by Desmond Ball Kwa Chong Guan Copyright © 2010 Strategic & Defence Studies Centre and S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Published by S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Nanyang Technological University South Spine, S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue Singapore 639798 Telephone: 6790 6982 Fax: 6793 2991 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.idss.edu.sg Strategic & Defence Studies Centre School of International, Political and Strategic Studies Building 130, Hedley Bull Centre The Australian National University ACT 0200 Australia Phone: 61 2 6125 9921 Fax: 61 2 6125 9926 First published in 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo- copying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre and S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Body text set in 10/13 point Warnock Pro Produced by BOOKSMITH ([email protected]) ISBN 978-981-08-5951-0 CONTENTS 1. Introduction: Assessing Track 2 in the Asia-Pacific Region 1 Desmond Ball and Kwa Chong Guan Part 1 The History of CSCAP 2. CSCAP’s Foundation and Achievements 9 Desmond Ball 3. CSCAP and the ARF 62 Desmond Ball Part 2 Critiques of CSCAP 4. Evaluating Track 2 Approaches to Security Dialogue in 77 the Asia-Pacific Region: The CSCAP Experience (2002) Sheldon W. Simon 5. Track 2 Diplomacy: Ideational Contribution 112 to the Evolving Asian Security Order (2003) Brian L. Job 6. The Autonomy Dilemma of Track 2 Diplomacy 162 in Southeast Asia (2000) Herman Joseph S. Kraft CONTENTS Part 3 Future Perspectives on CSCAP, Track 2 and Regional Security Architecture 7. Track 2: Developments and Prospects 179 Brendan Taylor and Anthony Milner 8. Security Architecture and Institutionalism 191 in the Asia Pacific See Seng Tan and Ralf Emmers 9. Non-traditional Security Issues in Asia: Imperatives 202 for Deepening Regional Security Cooperation Mely Caballero-Anthony 10. The ASEAN Regional Forum: Moving Towards 219 Preventive Diplomacy Ralph A. Cossa 11. CSCAP: Shaping the Future of the ASEAN 227 Regional Forum Barry Desker 12. From Epistemic to Learning Community 240 Kwa Chong Guan Part 4 Conclusions 13. Conclusions: Assessing CSCAP and its Prospects 251 Desmond Ball and Kwa Chong Guan Notes on the Authors 270 Annex 1: The Kuala Lumpur Statement, 8 June 1993 275 Annex 2: The CSCAP Charter 277 Bibliography 282 LIST OF FIGURES & TAblES Figures Figure 2.1 CSCAP Structure Figure 5.1 Multilateral Track 1 and Track 2 meetings on Asia-Pacific security issues, 1993–2000 Figure 5.2 Multilateral Track 1 and Track 2 events on Asia-Pacific security, 1993–2006 Figure 12.1 Knowledge management for sense-making Tables Table 2.1 CSCAP member committees Table 2.2 CSCAP co-chairs Table 2.3 CSCAP memoranda Table 2.4 CSCAP Steering Committee meetings Table 2.5 CSCAP general meetings/conferences Table 2.6 Working Group/Study Group meetings Table 5.1 Types of multilateral institutions engaged in Asia-Pacific security Table 5.2 Multilateral Track 1 and Track 2 meetings on Asia-Pacific security issues, 1993–2000 1 INTRODUCTION ASSESSING TRACK 2 DIPLOMACY IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION DESMOND BALL AND KWA CHONG GUAN his book is intended to provide a critical assessment of the role of Track 2 diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region, and, more specifically, of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), widely regarded as Tthe premier Track 2 organization in the region. It describes CSCAP’s formation and development, reviewing its principal activities since its establishment, particularly with respect to its relationship with the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), its declared Track 1 counterpart. It also identifies and analyses perceived weaknesses in CSCAP’s organization and failures in its processes, some of which derive from its fundamen- tal connections with official (governmental) agencies constituting Track 1. The main body of the book is prospective, providing analyses of current and projected developments with respect to the evolving regional architectures, the increasingly “crowded” institutional landscape, the place of ASEAN and the ARF in contending architectures, the role of Track 2, and the increasing challenges of non-traditional security (NTS) issues. This sets the context for the assessment of CSCAP’s prospects for its next couple of decades. CSCAP was set up in 1992–1993 to provide “a more structured regional process of a non-governmental nature to contribute to the efforts towards regional confi- dence building and enhancing regional security through dialogues, consultation and cooperation”.1 It was described at the time as “the most ambitious proposal to date for a regularized, focused and inclusive non-governmental process on Pacific security matters”,2 and as “one of the most important developments in regional security since 1 See the “Seoul Statement on Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific”, in Desmond Ball, Richard L. Grant & Jusuf Wanandi (Eds.), Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific Region (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1993), p. 37. 2 Paul M. Evans, “The Council for Security Cooperation in Asia-Pacific: Context and Prospects”, CANCAPS Paper No. 2 (Toronto: Canadian Consortium on Asia Pacific Security, York University, March 1994), p. 1. 1 Assessing Track 2 Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific Region A CSCAP Reader the end of the Cold War”.3 It was an important, ambitious and exciting initiative, in a region which heretofore had been opposed to multilateralism, but it also contained inherent sources of tension—such as the liberal institutionalism/realism relationship, somewhat different academic and policy-oriented perspectives, and different views about the scale of the activities to be undertaken by the organization. The tensions have been both creative and debilitating. CSCAP is now a generally recognized feature of the security architecture of the Asia-Pacific region. Its achievements since 1992–1993 have been extraordinary. These are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 by Desmond Ball discusses the development of the relationship between CSCAP and the ARF. The ARF is the centrepiece of the institutionalization of multilateral security dialogue and confidence building in the region. Among the different views about CSCAP’s purposes, its ability to provide policy-relevant studies and analyses for the ARF has generally been accorded highest priority. The contribu- tion which CSCAP has made to the ARF process is also an important measure of its success. Part II of this volume consists of three previously published articles by Sheldon Simon, Brian Job and Herman Kraft, which are now nearly a decade old, but which are classics in the field. They have raised issues that are critical to any critique of CSCAP and Track 2 processes in the Asia-Pacific region more generally. The three respective authors have each added a brief postscript to their papers. Chapter 4, by Sheldon Simon, was published in The Pacific Review in 2002;4 it was drawn from a longer report by Simon published by the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) in September 2001.5 He found that CSCAP was a “fine exemplar” of Track 2 diplomacy. He reported that CSCAP had “achieved some noteworthy successes, including a definition of preventive diplomacy adopted by the ARF, a number of agreements on oceanic management which have been taken up by the ARF, and the establishment of a database on nuclear energy safety practices”, and that “these and a number of other CSCAP recommendations have been passed on to the ARF and have attained an important place on the latter’s own agenda”. However, he also noted “the tendency of Track 2 security specialists to limit the range of their conceptualizations to what they believe is acceptable to governments”, and “the fact that national differences frequently trump scholarly objectivity”. He concluded that CSCAP formed an “epistemic community”, which played “a significant role in Track 3 Ian McPhedran, “Asia-Pacific Body Created to Formalise Regional Cooperation”, Canberra Times, 17 July 1993, p. 3. 4 Sheldon W. Simon, “Evaluating Track II Approaches to Security Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific: The CSCAP Experience”, The Pacific Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2002), pp. 167–200. It is reprinted here with the permission of The Pacific Review and Taylor and Francis. 5 Sheldon W. Simon, “Evaluating Track II Approaches to Security Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific: The CSCAP Experience”, NBR Special Report, National Bureau of Asian Research, September 2001. 2 I Introduction: Assessing Track 2 Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific Region 1 security deliberations in the Asia Pacific”. Chapter 5 by Brian Job was published in 2003.6 It was prepared for a volume concerned with exploring “the existence and nature of order in the management of Asian security affairs”, and covers broader ground. It assesses the ideational con- tribution of Track 2 diplomacy to the “evolving Asia security order”. Job addresses two basic questions: first, he attempts to ascertain the impact that Track 2 processes have had on “determining the character of the post-Cold War security architecture in Asia”; he argues that, ideationally, “they have served as agents of change and norm entrepreneurs working to alter perceptions of interests, redefinition of identities (both individual and collective), and acceptance of the key principles of open region- alism and cooperative security”. Second, he discusses the prospects for “sustaining forward momentum on enhancing the norms and modalities” of regional security cooperation; he argues here that Track 2 institutions needed to adapt to “the effects of generational change and forces of democratization and globalization”, and that “encompassing the voices and interests of civil society must become a priority for Track 2 if it is to sustain its role in shaping the future of the Asia Pacific security order”.