The International Institute for Strategic Studies The International Institute for Strategic Studies This content may be used for research and private study purposes. All rights reserved. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.iiss.org/terms-and-conditions SCROLL DOWN FOR DOWNLOADED CONTENT The International Institute for Strategic Studies, Arundel House, 6 Temple Place, London WC2R 2PG, United Kingdom. www.iiss.org. Incorporated in England with limited liability under number 615259. UK registered charity 206504.
14th Asia Security Summit SINGAPORE, 29 31 MAY 2015 The IISS Shangri-La Dialogue chapter 4 third plenary session Preventing conflict escalation Saturday 30 May 2015, 12:00 SPEAKERS Dato Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Minister of Defence, Malaysia General Tea Banh Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense, Cambodia Michael Fallon Secretary of State for Defence, United Kingdom
third plenary session Preventing conflict escalation Dato Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, Minister of Defence, Malaysia Opening the third plenary session, on Preventing conflict escalation, Malaysian Minister of Defence Dato Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said that the topic of discussion gave rise to both optimism and pessimism: optimism, because it suggested that it lay within our power to prevent conflict; pessimism, because it suggested conflicts were inevitable. Existing conflicts in the Middle East, Europe and Africa appeared not only to be unresolved but looked set to get worse. Peace and stability remained crucial for Southeast Asia and the world. Conflicts elsewhere could spread to the region, so Southeast Asia had a strong stake in conflict prevention. Shifts in technology had created an unpredictable threat environment. It had become conventional wisdom to emphasise non-state threats. This broadly conveyed the current reality, but the risk of state threats could not be ignored. Policymakers risked falling into habits of mind shaped by existing trends and failing to give attention to longer-term issues. In today s complex and uncertain world, one set of tools and one strategic mindset were not enough. Southeast Asia faced three flashpoints. The first was the Rohingya refugee crisis. Malaysia had taken a leadership role in providing the Rohingyas with temporary shelter and protection, but this issue required a just and comprehensive settlement at the source and had to be resolved in the ASEAN way. So far the focus had been on the second flashpoint, defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and al-sham (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, but ISIS had established a foothold in other regions, including Southeast Asia, where some 30 groups had pledged allegiance to it. Two hundred Malaysians had joined ISIS in Syria and a further 100 had been arrested for supporting ISIS. There was a need for vigilance and cooperation to prevent the establishment of an ISIS caliphate and to combat ISIS ideology by addressing the social and political concerns of vulnerable young people and enhancing their sense of dignity. 30 The IISS Shangri-La Dialogue
General Tea Banh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense, Cambodia The third, most serious, issue was tension in the South China Sea, which could escalate into the deadliest conflict of the modern age. Malaysia supported the implementation of a code of conduct and the avoidance of actions that might raise tensions. There were encouraging precedents for the bilateral resolution of claims through the International Court of Justice. States had the right to act as they saw fit in their sovereign areas but also had the responsibility to be aware of the wider implications of their actions. In conclusion, there was a need for states to: keep sight of the bigger picture; develop early-warning systems for security issues; develop detailed strategies for dealing with social media; and promote more military diplomacy, intelligence exchanges, openness and transparency. General Tea Banh, Cambodia s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense, said that most wars began gradually and this meant there was scope for diplomacy to have an effect. There were three main causes of escalation: strategic uncertainty, a lack of attention by the international community, and a lack of rules of interaction. Miscalculation of the kind engendered by security dilemmas and a lack of confidence in each other s intentions could lead to conflict. Another cause of conflict was the lack of a sense of community, which might lead to the conviction that only force would generate security. This was not inevitable and, over the course of history, groups of states had been able to establish communities and with them norms of conduct. As to the absence of rules governing interaction between states, here too there were some positive examples, including the non-use of chemical weapons during the Second World War, and nuclear restraint during the Cold War. Dialogue should always be the first resort in dealing with tensions. Existing mechanisms within Southeast Asia had already proved their worth, including the ADMM, chaired by Dato Seri Hishammuddin, which at its Langkawi meeting in March 2015 had focused on the threat from ISIS and had agreed to enhance cooperation in addressing it. Other achievements of the ADMM included an agreement on the avoidance of incidents at sea. Maritime security remained a pressing regional concern. Disputes had to be resolved peacefully and Cambodia supported the code-of-conduct proposal. Without existing regional mechanisms, the situation in the South China Sea would have already escalated. In conclusion, General Tea Banh said that managing strategic tension was a vital issue and required states to change their perceptions of each other. Michael Fallon, the UK s Secretary of State for Defence, said that the UK had strong links with the Asia-Pacific region in trade and security, and shared the values of most Asia-Pacific states, namely tolerance, justice and the rule of law. Third plenary session 31
Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defence, United Kingdom The world was becoming a more dangerous place. In Europe, old threats were re-emerging with Russia s activities in Ukraine. In the Middle East and Africa, ISIS and Boko Haram were seeking to establish states. In Asia, North Korea continued behaviour justifying its rogue state label. And land-reclamation projects in the South China Sea risked giving rise to miscalculation. Regional tensions in the Asia-Pacific region had global consequences. The UK had drawn lessons from its security engagements in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Firstly, it was essential to speak out about the causes of aggression and to defend one s values. The UK government had no position on sovereignty claims in the South China Sea but provocative behaviour there risked escalation. The UK was concerned by the scale and speed of current land reclamation and the implications for freedom of navigation, and called on all parties to refrain from provocative actions. The focus should be on restraint and responsibility, dialogue and diplomacy, and the establishment of a binding code of conduct. The second lesson was to maintain strong armed forces. States needed the means to enforce peace. The UK was investing in new military capabilities to the tune of 160 billion over the next decade, including new aircraft carriers and the Joint Strike Fighter. The UK was also expanding its defence presence in the Asia-Pacific region and leveraging defence training. However, capacity was of no use without the will to act, and the UK had shown a willingness to engage in the Baltic states and against ISIS. The UK was the fifth-largest funder of UN peacekeeping missions and was involved in operations around the world, including in the search for MH370, the Philippines typhoon, Vanuatu and Nepal. The third lesson was the need to strengthen international relationships. Existing post-second World War institutions remained valid and NATO was more relevant than ever. As part of the European defence architecture, the UK wished to see the evolution of a regional defence architecture in the Asia-Pacific region but also supported a central US role. The UK also welcomed China s contribution to international public goods, and was developing defence relations with Japan and Korea. Its commitment to the Five Power Defence Arrangements was undiminished. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS A number of questions focused on the South China Sea. Dr Sophie Boisseau du Rocher from the French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) asked if ASEAN s High Council or Treaty of Amity and Cooperation might be used to help prevent conflict escalation. Bonnie Glaser from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, asked for some concrete suggestions from the panel about how to achieve consensus on international law and a 32 The IISS Shangri-La Dialogue
Dr Sophie Boisseau du Rocher, Senior Research Fellow, Asia Centre, French Institute for International Relations (IFRI) Bonnie Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia, Freeman Chair in China Studies, Center for Strategic and International Studies Dr Chikako Ueki, Professor, International Relations, Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University rules-based order. Dr Chikako Ueki from Waseda University, asked how ASEAN countries viewed the potential use of negative sanctions, force if necessary to build and maintain the rule of law and order in the South China Sea. Senior Captain Zhang Junshe, Military Academic Research Institute, PLA, asked Minister Hishammuddin for his opinion of the dualtrack approach to the South China Sea that China had proposed. Peter Jennings, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, asked the British and Malaysian ministers if any thought had been given to using the Five Power Defence Arrangements to assert the right of navigation and airspace access in the South China Sea. In response, Hishammuddin admitted that the development of mechanisms for preventing escalation was moving at a glacial pace, but asked what the alternative was for ASEAN and its members. Fallon said that the Code of Conduct was not necessarily the answer : other measures, including resolution of conflicting claims through legal mechanisms, would also be necessary. Regarding the terrorist threat, Lieutenant General Dato Pahlawan Dr William Rangit Stevenson, Malaysian Institute of Defence and Security, Malaysia, asked how the growing threat from ISIS should be addressed. Hishammuddin said that the threat in Southeast Asia was real and that Malaysia was working very closely with Brunei, Indonesia and the Philippines to ensure that the... area they [ISIS] have identified in declaring a caliphate does not materialise. Dzirhan Mahadzir, Senior Captain Zhang Junshe, Research Fellow, Military Academic Research Institute, People s Liberation Army, China Peter Jennings, Executive Director, Australian Strategic Policy Institute Lieutenant General Dato Pahlawan Dr William Rangit Stevenson, Chief Executive, Malaysian Institute of Defence and Security Third plenary session 33
Dzirhan Mahadzir, Malaysia Correspondent, IHS Jane s Defence Weekly Professor Sven Biscop, Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations, Belgium Malaysian Correspondent, IHS Janes Defence Weekly, asked Hishammuddin about why the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting was missing in action in relation to the Rohingya crisis earlier in the month. The Malaysian minister replied that he was relieved that the Rohingya issue had become internationalised and pointed to the role of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand in providing temporary shelter for Rohingyas on a humanitarian bases. There were already 120,000 Rohingyas in Malaysia, he said, with the prospect of many more arriving soon. Professor Sven Biscop from the Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations, asked Fallon for his view on the collective European role in Asia. The British minister replied that there clearly is a European interest here because of Europe s economic stake in the region. 34 The IISS Shangri-La Dialogue