Advertisement

Beneath the Surface of Consensus: The Development of Confidence-Building Measures Between the PRC and ASEAN in the South China Sea Disputes

  • Moises Lopes de Souza
Chapter
Part of the Critical Studies of the Asia-Pacific book series (CSAP)

Abstract

This chapter describes how ASEAN member states’ mechanisms of decision-making have developed since the regional grouping’s inception. It details how concepts of confidence-building measures (CBMs) have given rise to contradictions within negotiation mechanisms developed to address the South China Sea disputes. It also recounts the historical process behind the creation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional negotiation structure and shows the internal constraints and the nature of the problems the group faces as it seeks to progress from CBMs to preventive diplomacy (PD). Since its inception, the negotiating dynamic related to the South China Sea has experienced friction between states seeking a way to accommodate all interests and those motivated by individual gains. The first group includes the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and Track II negotiation forums like the Indonesia Workshop, while the second includes more assertive states such as China.

References

  1. Abuza, Zachary. “Analyzing Southeast Asia’s Military Expenditures.” CogitASIA—CSIS Asia Policy Blog. Last modified May 7, 2015. http://cogitasia.com/analyzing-southeast-asias-military-expenditures/.
  2. Acharya, Amitav. The ASEAN Regional Forum: Confidence Building. Ottawa: Dept. of Foreign Affairs and International Trade—Verification Research Program, 1997. http://www.amitavacharya.com/sites/default/files/ASEAN%20Regional%20Forum-Confidence%20Building.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  3. “An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping.” Foreign Policy Bulletin 3, no. 02 (1992), 32–42. doi: 10.1017/s1052703 600004159.
  4. ARF. “About Us.” ASEAN Regional Forum. http://www.aseanregionalforum.org/AboutUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx. Accessed September 19, 2016.
  5. ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). “Chairman’s Statement: The Second ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial Meeting, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam.” Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. Last modified August 1, 1995. https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/ac/csbm/rd/4376.htm.
  6. ASEAN. ARF Annual Security Outlook 2009. Bangkok, Thailand: Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 2009. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/43368421/arf-annual-security-outlook-2009pdf-asean-regional-forum. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  7. Association of Southeast Asian Nations. “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976.” ASEAN. Last modified February 24, 1976. http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/. Accessed February 9, 2017.
  8. Caballero-Anthony, Mely. Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Caballero-Anthony, Mely. Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Capie, David H. “Globalization, Norms, and Sovereignty: ASEAN’s Changing Identity and Its Implications for Development.” In Development and Security in Southeast Asia. Vol I: The Environment, edited by David B. Dewitt and Carolina G. Hernandez, 87–114. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Group, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Capie, David H., and Paul M. Evans. The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Connor, Neil. “China Claims Victory as ASEAN Countries Issue Watered Down Statement on South China Sea.” The Telegraph (London), July 25, 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/25/china-claims-victory-as-asean-countries-issue-watered-down-state/. Accessed February 9, 2017.
  13. Cossa, Ralph A. Asia Pacific Confidence and Security Building Measures. Washington, DC: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. Council for Security Cooperation in Asia Pacific. “The Kuala Lumpur Statement 8 June 1993 Establishment of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific.” CSCAP. http://www.cscap.org/index.php?page=the-kuala-lumpur-statement. Accessed February 8, 2017.
  15. Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP). “About Us.” CSCAP. http://www.cscap.org/index.php?page=about-us. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  16. Djalal, Hasjim, and Ian Townsend-Gault. “Managing Potential Conflicts in the South China Sea: Informal Diplomacy for Conflict Prevention.” In Herding Cats: Multiparty Mediation in a Complex World, edited by Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson, and Pamela R. Aall, 107–34. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Emmers, Ralf. “Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea:Strategic and Diplomatic Status Quo.” In Maritime Security in Southeast Asia, edited by Chong Guan Kwa and John Kristen Skogan, 49–61. London: Routledge, 2007.Google Scholar
  18. Emmers, Ralph. “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: A failure in Practice.” RSIS Working Paper, no. 189 (December 2009).Google Scholar
  19. Evans, Paul M. “Building Security: The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP).” The Pacific Review 7, no. 2 (1994), 125–139.Google Scholar
  20. Global Security Organization. “Military Clashes in the South China Sea.” GlobalSecurity.org. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly-clash.htm. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  21. Joint Communique of The 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting, 24 July 2016. Ventiane: ASEAN, 2016. https://www.asean2016.gov.la/kcfinder/upload/files/Joint%20Communique%20of%20the%2049th%20AMM%20(ADOPTED).pdf. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  22. Joyner, Christopher C. “The Spratly Dispute in the South China Sea: Problems, Policies, and Prospects for Diplomatic Accommodation.” In Investigating Confidence-Building Measures in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by Ranjeet K Singh, 53–109. Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. Kawamura, Koichi. “Consensus and Democracy in Indonesia: Musyawarah-Mufakat Revisited.” IDE Discussion Paper, no. 308 (September 2011). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2280935.Google Scholar
  24. Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone: (Adopted at the 24th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People’s Congress on February 25, 1992, Promulgated by Order No. 55 of the President of the People’s Republic of China on February 25, 1992, and Effective as of the Date of Promulgation. [S.l.]: [s.n.], 1997. http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/CHN_1992_Law.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  25. List of ARF Track I Activities. Bangkok: ASEAN Regional Forum. http://aseanregionalforum.asean.org/library/arf-activities.html?id=52. Accessed September 19, 2016.
  26. Lund, Michael S. “Underrating Preventive Diplomacy.” Foreign Affairs 74, no. 4 (1995), 160–163.Google Scholar
  27. Mattli, Walter. The Logic of Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OSCE. “Who We Are.” Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. http://www.osce.org/whatistheosce. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  29. Percival, Bronson. The Dragon Looks South: China and Southeast Asia in the New Century. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International, 2007.Google Scholar
  30. Potkin, Fanny. “The Truth Behind ASEAN’s Vanishing South China Sea Statement.” Forbes Magazine, June 16, 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/fannypotkin/2016/06/16/now-you-see-it-now-you-dont-the-truth-behind-aseans-vanishing-south-china-sea-statement/#5c97e8a13d1a. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  31. Quilop, Raymund Jose G. The ARF Experience: Institution Building in the Asia-Pacific. Quezon City, Philippines: Office of Strategic and Special Studies, Armed Forces of the Philippines, 2002.Google Scholar
  32. Simon, Shledon W. “The ASEAN Regional Forum.” In The Routledge Handbook of Asian Security Studies, edited by Sumit Ganguly, Andrew Scobell, and Joseph Chinyong Liow, 300–310. London: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
  33. Snyder, Scott. “The South China Sea Dispute: Prospects for Preventive Diplomacy.” United States Institute of Peace. Last modified August 1, 1996. http://www.usip.org/publications/the-south-china-sea-dispute-prospects-preventive-diplomacy. Accessed February 9, 2017.
  34. Snyder, Scott, Brad Glosserman, and Ralph A. Cossa. “Confidence Building Measures in the South China Sea.” Issues & Insights 2, no. 01 (August 2001). https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/issuesinsightsv01n02.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2017.
  35. Song, Yann-huei. United States and Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: A Study of Ocean Law and Politics. Baltimore: University of Maryland School of Law, 2002.Google Scholar
  36. Song, Yann-Huei. “Cross–Strait Interactions on the South China Sea Issues: A Need for CBMs.” Marine Policy 29, no. 3 (2005), 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stedman, Stephen J. “Alchemy for a New World Order: Overselling ‘Preventive Diplomacy’.” Foreign Affairs 74, no. 3 (1995), 14–20.Google Scholar
  38. Stein, Arthur A. Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstances and Choice in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  39. Swanström, Niklas. “Conflict Management and Negotiations in the South China Sea: The ASEAN Way?” Paper presented at Workshop on The South China Sea Conflict, Oslo, March 31, 1999.Google Scholar
  40. Weatherbee, Donald E. “Re-Assessing Indonesia’s Role in the South China Sea.” ISEAS Perspective 2016, no. 18 (April 2016).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Moises Lopes de Souza
    • 1
  1. 1.International Doctoral Program in Asia-Pacific StudiesNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations