Speech by Ag Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Lee Yock Suan at the 3rd UN-ASEAN Conference on Conflict Prevention , Conflict Resolution and Peace Building in Southeast Asia 18 Feb 03, Traders Hotel

SPEECH BY ACTING MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MR LEE YOCK SUAN, ON THE OCCASION OF THE 3RD UN-ASEAN CONFERENCE ON "CONFLICT PREVENTION, CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEACE BUILDING IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: ASEAN/UN EXPERIENCES IN ANTICIPATING AND MEDIATING CONFLICTS" ON TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2003 AT THE TRADERS HOTEL

1I would like to extend a warm welcome to all the distinguishedparticipants here today. This is the third in a series of seminarsaimed at advancing practical knowledge and experience in conflictprevention, conflict resolution and peace building in Southeast Asia. Ihope that this gathering would be able to build on the good work thatwas done in the preceding meetings in Bangkok and Manila.

2It goes without saying that conflicts are costly. And not only in termsof economic and monetary losses. As has been aptly put by UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan in his 2001 report on the Prevention of ArmedConflict, "The human costs of war include not only the visible andimmediate - death, injury, destruction, displacement - but also thedistant and indirect repercussion for families, communities, local andnational institutions and economies, and neighbouring countries."

3The 1997 report by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing DeadlyConflict estimated that the international community spent about US$200billion on the seven major interventions of the 1990s - Bosnia &Herzegovina, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, the Persian Gulf, Cambodia and ElSalvador. These figures do not include the efforts by states,international organisations and NGOs to provide humanitarian assistanceto the afflicted populations.

4 Conflict prevention,conflict resolution and peacebuilding are not new concepts. In 1899,the International Peace Conference was held in The Hague to elaborateinstruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars andcodifying rules of warfare. Even before this, the Treaty of Westphalia,concluded in 1648, set out the concept of state sovereignty andestablished some basic principles governing inter-state relations in anattempt to prevent the Thirty Years War from ever re-occurring. Thesolution to conflict was seen to lie with the codification, ininternational agreements and treaties, of rights and obligations ofstates, principles governing inter-state relations, and methods fordispute resolution.

5 This reliance on and respect for therule of law, as the very first safeguard against conflict, has beenenshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The UN itself wasestablished after World War 2 with the mission "to save succeedinggenerations from the scourge of war". This emphasis on the sanctity ofinternational law and treaties has become even more relevant in today'suncertain international environment. Over the past decade, there havebeen many challenges to the traditional concept of state sovereignty.We have seen a change in intra and inter-state relations as nationsstruggle to deal with issues such as globalisation, humanitarianintervention, and various transnational issues. Amidst this flux, therespect for international law and agreements remains as a constant andaccepted guiding principle in governing international relations.

Challenges to prevention efforts

6It is useful for seminars like this to exchange ideas and experiencesin anticipating and mediating conflicts. I would like to submit fourchallenges which I hope this seminar could address.

7First, the responsibility for preventive action lies with a range ofactors, namely national governments, civil society, the UN and otherinternational and regional organisations. The Charter provides the UNwith a strong mandate for preventing armed conflict. The UN itself iswell placed to act as a focal point for marshalling internationalpolitical support and resources to manage a crisis before it breaks outinto conflict. At the same time, regional organisations have a role toplay. However, how are these identified roles translated into specificpreventive action? In the event of a crisis, who should take theresponsibility to initiate preventive action? How should thisresponsibility be distributed amongst the various actors involved?

8Second, timely action to prevent violent conflict is difficult as it isoften hard to identify situations that are appropriate for preventiveaction. There is a gestation period between the time when potentialcauses of conflict are identified, and the time when conflict actuallybreaks out. It is this gestation period that provides an importantwindow of opportunity for preventive action. However, there remains agap in our understanding of this transition from potential crisis toactual conflict. The nature and timing of trigger mechanisms, whichspark violent conflict are complex, under-studied and difficult topredict without a deep understanding of local dynamics. So how does onedesign an effective preventive strategy that addresses the triggerpoints for conflict?

9 Third, it is difficult to mobiliseresources for preventive action in the absence of actual violence.Funding decisions are still largely conducted in a reactive fashion. Inour world of limited resources and competing priorities, there is astrong sense of the need to "get value for money" or to justify todomestic populations that funds had to be spent. However, in theabsence of actual violence, the impact of conflict is hard to assess.There remains considerable work to be done in developing some sort ofaccountability system for investments in conflict prevention.

10Fourth, I hope this seminar can also address the issue of thelegitimacy of conflict prevention efforts and its impact on traditionalconcerns of state sovereignty. When does collective interest inregional peace and stability become an intrusion into the internalaffairs of the state? At the same time, the success of preventiveefforts requires the cooperation of the parties affected, be theystates or segments of the population. This is the most difficult andsensitive aspect of prevention efforts that has to be addressed.

Regional experiences

11I have no ready answer to the four issues that I have just raised.However, as this is a seminar that focuses on sharing of experienceswith the aim of distilling some possible answers, I will now like toshare with you Singapore's perspective on our region's efforts toprevent and manage conflict.

12 Over thirty years ago, theprospects for Southeast Asia looked dim. There was war and conflictwithin and between some member states and economic prospects of theregion were gloomy. Because of this, ASEAN was established in 1967 forthe purpose of "accelerating economic growth, social progress andcultural development in the region through joint endeavours in thespirit of equality and partnership", and for promoting "regional peaceand stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of lawin the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to theprinciples of the UN Charter". (I am quoting from the ASEANDeclaration)

13 It is noteworthy that since the creationof ASEAN, no Southeast Asian country has gone to war with another. Muchof the region's success in maintaining peace and stability can beattributed to the "ASEAN way" of cooperation and consensus building. Itis also due to member states' adherence to the principles of mutualrespect, non-interference and respect for the rule of law, as enshrinedin the Bangkok Declaration and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation(TAC).

14 While our common membership in ASEAN has been agood starting point for peace in the region, we should not becomplacent and take this peace for granted. Given that the triggerpoints for conflict are complex and difficult to predict, there is aneed to aspire beyond attaining "zero war" to attaining "zero prospectof war". This requires the building of a "culture of conflictprevention". As such, in 1994, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) wasestablished with the primary purpose of sustaining and enhancingregional stability.

15 The ARF has evolved into a usefulforum which facilitates discussion of sensitive regional issues betweenmember states. As comfort levels have risen, discussions have graduallymoved from traditional security issues to non-traditional and othertransnational issues, such as terrorism. In the light of Sept 11, theARF has proven itself to be a very useful vehicle for confidencebuilding and effective cooperation in global counter-terrorism efforts.With the broad convergence and quick response among member countries intackling terrorism, the ARF has demonstrated its ability to meet thechallenge of preventive diplomacy. The ARF is now seeking a new wayforward - striking a balance between the traditional sensitivitiesamong ARF members, while capitalising on the newfound momentum forcooperation in the ARF.

16 In our work of buildingregional peace, Southeast Asia has enjoyed the support of the UN andits agencies. For many years, ASEAN and the UN worked closely in searchof peaceful settlement to conflict and to the building of peace inCambodia. These collaborative efforts culminated in the establishmentof the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia, which till today, standsas a hallmark of cooperation between regional states and the UN inpreventive diplomacy and peacebuilding. Another successful example ofcooperation between the UN and the region has been the case of EastTimor. Since 1982, the ASEAN countries supported the negotiations thatIndonesia and Portugal conducted under the auspices of the UNSecretary-General. More recently, at Indonesia's request, ASEAN membersalso agreed to have prominent ASEAN participation in the internationalforce that the UN was organising for East Timor. ASEAN members havealso provided material support to the UN Transitional Authority forEast Timor and its successor mission. For example, Filipinos, Thais,Malaysians and Singaporeans currently stand amongst the UN peacekeepersstationed in East Timor.

Conclusion

17 Just as thereis a range of conflict situations, there should be a range ofmechanisms to prevent and manage conflict. We in Southeast Asia havesought to develop our options in preventing and managing conflictthrough regional mechanisms, as well as through close cooperation withthe UN and its agencies. It is our hope that the previous experiencesof cooperation between ASEAN and the UN will help to further dialoguebetween the two organisations in the field of conflict prevention andmanagement. This seminar is a timely opportunity to explore thechallenges in creating and implementing prevention strategies, and theroles which international and regional organisations can play. I wishall participants a fruitful and constructive discussion in theirefforts to find answers to these and other key questions.