November 2010 86 Peacebuilding in Asia: refutation or cautious engagement? Amaia Sánchez-Cacicedo ISBN 978-92-9198-172-4 ISSN 1608-5000 QN-AB-10-086-EN-C doi:10.2815/20160 published by the European Union Institute for Security Studies 43 avenue du Président Wilson - 75775 Paris cedex 16 - France phone: + 33 (0) 1 56 89 19 30 fax: + 33 (0) 1 56 89 19 31 e-mail: [email protected] www.iss.europa.eu european Union Institute for Security Studies OCCASIONAL PAPErS n° 85 Sep 2010 Transforming the Quartet principles: Hamas and the Peace Process Carolin Goerzig n° 84 Aug 2010 Human rights challenges in EU civilian crisis management: the cases of EUPOL and EUJUST LEX Wanda Troszczynska-van Genderen n° 83 Mar 2010 The EU in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Powers, decisions and legitimacy The Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) Bart M.J. Szewczyk was created in January 2002 as a Paris-based autonomous agency of the European Un- n° 82 Feb 2010 Cooperation by Committee: The EU Military Committee and the Committee ion. Following an EU Council Joint Action of 20 July 2001, modified by the Joint Action for Civilian Crisis Management of 21 December 2006, it is now an integral part of the new structures that will support the Mai’a K. Davis Cross further development of the CFSP/ESDP. The Institute’s core mission is to provide analyses Command and control? Planning for EU military operations and recommendations that can be of use and relevance to the formulation of EU policies. In n° 81 Jan 2010 Luis Simón carrying out that mission, it also acts as an interface between experts and decision-makers at all levels. n° 80 Oct 2009 Risky business? The EU, China and dual-use technology May-Britt U. Stumbaum The Occasional Papers n° 79 Jun 2009 The interpolar world: a new scenario Giovanni Grevi are essays or reports that the Institute considers should be made available as a contribu- tion to the debate on topical issues relevant to European security. They may be based on n° 78 Apr 2009 Security Sector Reform in Afghanistan: the EU’s contribution Eva Gross work carried out by researchers granted awards by the EUISS, on contributions prepared by external experts, and on collective research projects or other activities organised by (or n° 77 Mar 2009 From Suez to Shanghai: The European Union and Eurasian maritime security with the support of) the Institute. They reflect the views of their authors, not those of the James Rogers Institute. n° 76 Feb 2009 EU support to African security architecture: funding and training components Occasional Papers will be available on request in the language – either English or French – Nicoletta Pirozzi used by authors. n° 75 Jan 2009 Les conflits soudanais à l’horizon 2011 : scénarios They will also be accessible via the Institute’s website: www.iss.europa.eu Jean-Baptiste Bouzard n° 74 Dec 2008 The EU, NATO and European Defence — A slow train coming Asle Toje n° 73 Nov 2008 Nécessité et difficultés d’une coopération de sécurité et de défense entre l’Europe et l’Amérique latine Alfredo G.A. Valladão n° 72 Sep 2008 EU-UN cooperation in military crisis management: European Union Institute for Security Studies the experience of EUFOR RD Congo in 2006 Director: Álvaro de Vasconcelos Claudia Major n° 71 Jul 2008 2007 : Les enjeux des élections législatives en Algérie et au Maroc © EU Institute for Security Studies 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be Luis Martinez reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the EU Institute n° 70 Dec 2007 The EU and Georgia: time perspectives in conflict resolution for Security Studies. Bruno Coppieters ISBN 978-92-9198-172-4 n° 69 Oct 2007 Lessons learned from European defence equipment programmes ISSN 1608-5000 Jean-Pierre Darnis, Giovanni Gasparini, Christoph Grams, Daniel Keohane, QN-AB-10-086-EN-C Fabio Liberti, Jean-Pierre Maulny and May-Britt Stumbaum doi:10.2815/20160 Published by the EU Institute for Security Studies and printed in Condé-sur-Noireau (France) by All Occasional Papers can be accessed via the Institute’s website: Corlet Imprimeur, graphic design by: Hanno Ranck in cooperation with Metropolis (Lisbon). www.iss.europa.eu OccasiOnal PaPer November 2010 86 Peacebuilding in Asia: refutation or cautious engagement? Amaia Sánchez-Cacicedo The author Amaia Sánchez-Cacicedo is a graduate of Georgetown University and is currently a Ph.D candidate at the Politics and International Studies Department of the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Her Ph.D research focuses on the role of non-regional and regional third parties in domestic conflict resolution processes using the 2002-06 Peace Process in Sri Lanka as a case study. Further research interests include peacebuilding, conflict resolution and international intervention, with a specific regional focus on South Asia. She has previously worked for the UNHCR in Costa Rica, Kenya and Sri Lanka. Acknowledgements The author would like to express her gratitude to Dr. Luis Peral from the EUISS for his excellent guidance, insightful comments and invaluable sup- port throughout the process of writing this paper. Contents Summary 5 1. Introduction: Is there an ‘Asian’ approach to peacebuilding? 7 Actors’ differing motivations for involvement in peacebuilding 10 A Westphalian versus a post-Westphalian approach: implications for peacebuilding 13 2. Peacebuilding within the region 17 The importance of bilateral relations 17 The uniquely Asian ASEAN way 20 3. Peacebuilding beyond the region 25 China: an ‘independent foreign policy of peace’ or rather contingent multilateralism? 26 India: a global peacekeeper but still a regional hegemon 31 Japan: Asia’s exception to the rule in peacebuilding 35 Conclusion 41 Annex 45 Abbreviations 45 Summary This Occasional Paper explores the features and implications of an ‘Asian’ approach to peacebuilding and seeks to define what is distinctive about this approach. In attempting to answer this question, the author aims to establish what characterises peacebuilding activities undertaken by Asian countries and how their attitudes to peacebuilding differ from Western- dominated mainstream views of peacebuilding. It is argued here that in an Asian context peacebuilding is conditioned by a Westphalian vision of the world as opposed to the post-Westphalian views of liberal interven- tionists. Thus, for Asian countries peacebuilding does not imply conflict resolution activities along the lines of peacemaking. Instead, peacebuild- ing practice in Asia is exercised through peacekeeping and economic as- sistance flows. Official involvement in a country’s internal political af- fairs, including humanitarian interventions that involve the use of force, or in domestic peace processes is commonly avoided. Yet, as in Western contexts, there is a growing niche for civil society in Asian peacebuilding activities as well as in the domain of non-traditional security issues. This development is explored in this paper. As a way of structuring the analysis, a distinction is made between peace- building within and beyond the Asian region, a key factor in influencing different actors’ approach. In the context of peacebuilding activities un- dertaken within Asia, the emphasis is on the nurturing of bilateral rela- tionships and on ‘limited’ multilateral peacebuilding. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is examined as a case study in order to explore this last aspect further. When looking into Asian actors’ peace- building activities beyond the region, the cases of China, India and Japan are addressed. With the exception of Japan, the other countries under scrutiny in this paper have focused the bulk of their peacebuilding activi- ties outside the region to contributing troops to UN Peacekeeping Opera- tions (UNPKO), hence the emphasis on the latter. In the conclusion, the existence of common features that distinguish a cautious Asian engagement in mainstream peacebuilding activities is con- 5 firmed; however, caution is different from complete refutation. Indeed, the Westphalian nature of Asian actors’ approach to peacebuilding per- vades both the regional and the global spheres, although the challenges are inevitably bigger at a global level. This further explains differences in motivation as well as in attitudes to the purpose of peacebuilding among Asian actors at different levels of analysis as addressed in this paper. 1. Introduction: Is there an ‘Asian’ approach to peacebuilding 1. Introduction: Is there an ‘Asian’ approach to peacebuilding? This paper aims to explore what characterises an ‘Asian’ approach to peace- building. In doing so, it further aims to discern to what extent Western- dominated mainstream views of peacebuilding are applicable to Asian countries. Thus, how does an Asian approach, seen as Westphalian in es- sence, differ from a post-Westphalian approach to peacebuilding?1 For this purpose, this paper begins by providing a working definition of peacebuild- ing (see pages 8-9). A distinction is made between peacebuilding within and beyond the Asian region, a factor seen as having a key influence on different actors’ approach. As far as providing examples of peacebuilding within Asia is concerned, the focus is on the nurturing of bilateral relationships among Asian countries, as well as on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).2 In order to explore Asian actors’ peacebuilding activities beyond the region, the cases of China, India and Japan are analysed individually. In the conclusion an attempt is made to answer the question as to whether there is a distinctive ‘Asian’ approach to peacebuilding, what it consists of and how the cases under study here relate to it. Global views on peacebuilding have evolved in tandem with an expanded notion of collective security which includes economic, political, environ- mental and health-oriented issues.3 Moreover, this new security paradigm 1.