Home Contact Us
Search :
   

Southeast Asia - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#3135, 24 May 2010
 
ASEAN and SAARC: Resolving Intra Regional Disputes
Chloe Choquier
Research Intern, IPCS
email: chloe_choquier@yahoo.fr
 

Prior to the SAARC 16th Summit held in Bhutan’s capital Thimphu in April 2010, Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed had affirmed his hopes about the bilateral meeting between Indian PM Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani. Since bilateral issues cannot officially be tackled in the multilateral forum of SAARC, this comment reflected the common feeling among SAARC member States that the Indo-Pak relations overshadow SAARC meetings. The incapacity of its member States to discuss political issues restrains SAARC’s credibility as a regional organization, but isn’t that the only way for such a discordant association to overcome its divisions? Can the Association learn anything from the ASEAN experience? Does 16th Summit offer any hope for a stronger political dialogue within SAARC in the future?

One of the reasons for creating a regional organization is the shared conviction among neighbours that the stronger the regional links, the lower the incentive to use force to resolve conflicts. In this sense, ASEAN Nations signed in 1975, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia adopting the principles of renunciation to the threat or the use of force, and settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner. Disputes have not been necessarily absent in Southeast Asia since then, but their common conviction that getting on with each other is an economically win-win situation forced the respect of agreed principles – mainly because, unlike SAARC’s members, ASEAN States are economically interdependent. Because of their complex and confrontational history, SAARC member States have not reached such a level of regional commitment. They agreed to contribute to mutual trust in the region through non-use of force and non-interference, but the absence of political dialogue on bilateral issues made these promises meaningless. Consequently, the threat or use of force between member States of SAARC has remained possible.

The main difference between ASEAN and SAARC lies in the existence of practical diplomatic tools to address these issues. ASEAN member States and other regional and international stakeholders created in 1994 the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to promote confidence-building and develop preventive diplomacy in the region. Often criticized for its lack of efficiency in tackling long-standing issues like Myanmar’s democratization, the ARF has nevertheless established a diplomatic forum to address these specific concerns. A SAARC Regional Forum to discuss disputes would be a proper way to take political pressure away from SAARC Summits but the creation of such a mechanism seems unlikely as long as SAARC lacks a common vision of regionalism. Pakistan and Sri Lanka are in favor of amending the SAARC charter to enable discussion on bilateral issues: they both believe that economic cooperation can’t be achieved without a resolution of political issues first. India, on the contrary, prefers economic cooperation to be the main driving force of regionalism, for fear that the smaller countries might form a united front to overrule Delhi and with the idea that political gains will follow. Unanimity being the one and only decision procedure, a stronger regional political dialogue is not in all likelihood a potential perspective.

It seems SAARC could learn a lesson from the success of informal diplomacy within ASEAN. Informal negotiations over the Spratly Islands dispute have been efficient in creating confidence-building between the actors and peaceful cooperation while official consultations, subjected to media pressure, focused merely on nationalist demands. Since SAARC’s official track is blocked, member States have also used bilateral meetings outside the summits to discuss their security issues. The meeting between Yousaf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the 16th Summit also proves the relative success of informal sideline diplomacy. Officially discussing political disagreements during the SAARC Summits would probably threaten dialogue on any other subject and even the very existence of SAARC. Keeping the discussions informal and bilateral allows SAARC to slowly but surely move forward on less controversial issues such as poverty reduction. In a nutshell, proponents of a Charter reform should resign themselves to the idea that bilateral diplomacy is probably the only solution to create a stronger SAARC.

Another explanation for ASEAN’s comparative success in conflict management is the use of alternative dispute resolution, through justice or mediation. If ASEAN countries favor bilateral conflict resolution, the principle of non-intervention pushed them to use the International Court of Justice to resolve territorial disputes like the sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan in 2002 and over Pedra Branca, Middle Rock and South Ledge in 2008. If the recourse to third-party mediation did not determine maritime boundaries, it was often the only way to break impasses and initiate bilateral negotiations. But the lack of confidence in international bodies and the Indian satisfaction with status quo in Kashmir make the use of international justice less likely within SAARC. To conclude, if international and regional ways to deal with disputes are efficient for ASEAN States, it seems bilateral discussions are the only foreseeable solution to make SAARC work in the fields of economic and social development. In this sense, India, as a leading member of SAARC, has a responsibility in convening informal bilateral negotiations with its neighbors to deal with regional disputes.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary

D Suba Chandran
Across the Durand Line: Who is in Control Now? Will That Change?
Taliban Talks and the Four Horsemen: Between Peace and Apocalypse
Pakistan: Talks about Talks with the Taliban, Again
Dateline Islamabad

Salma Malik
Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?
The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Dateline Kabul

Mariam Safi
Afghanistan, US and the Peace Process: A Deal with the Taliban in 2014?
Dhaka Discourse

Prof Delwar Hossain
Bangladesh: Domestic Politics and External Actors
Bangladesh Post Elections 2014: Redefining Domestic Politics?

Eagle Eye

Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
US in Asia: A 'Non-Alignment' Strategy?
Indo-US Strategic Partnership Post Khobragade: The Long Shadow
East Asia Compass

Dr Sandip Mishra
North Korean Peace Gestures and Inter-Korea Relations
Japan: Implications of Indiscriminate Assertiveness
China, Japan, Korea and the US: Region at Crossroads

Himalayan Frontier

Pramod Jaiswal
Chinese Inroads to Nepal
Constituent Assembly-II: Rifts Emerging
Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
Maritime Matters

Vijay Sakhuja
Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and the Indian Ocean Networks
China in the Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays
Iran Navy: Developing Long Sea Legs

Middle Kingdom

DS Rajan
China in the Indian Ocean: Competing Priorities
China-Japan Friction: How can India Respond?
Nuke Street

Amb Sheelkant Sharma
Nuclear Security Summit 2014 and the NTI Index
Nuclear Power: An Annual Report Card

Red Affairs

Bibhu Prasad
Maoists in the Northeast: Reality and Myth-Making
Surrender of Gudsa Usendi: Ominous beginning for the Naxals?
South Asian Dialectic

PR Chari
Federalism: Centre as Coordinator and Adjudicator
Limits of Federalism

Spotlight West Asia

Amb Ranjit Gupta
Saudi Arabia-US Estrangement: Implications for the Indian Subcontinent
Syria Today: Is Regime Change the Answer?
The Arab World: Trying Times Ahead
Strategic Space

Manpreet Sethi
US, China and the South Asian Nuclear Construct
Responding to Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Strategy for India

The Strategist

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Consort to a Doctrine of No First Use
 

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


 
Related Articles
Panchali Saikia,
"Myanmar Elections 2010 – III: ASEAN’s Ambivalence," 3 November 2010
Vibhanshu Shekhar,
"ADMM+: Another Case of ‘Pretentious Diplomacy’?," 29 October 2010
Panchali Saikia,
"Manmohan Singh in Southeast Asia," 27 October 2010
Pankaj Jha,
"US-ASEAN Meet: Resurrecting a US Role?," 7 October 2010
Tanvi Pate,
"Myanmar-Thailand Border Dispute: Prospects for Demarcation," 8 July 2010
Firdaus Ahmed,
"The Bright Side of ‘Asymmetric Escalation’," 5 April 2010
Vibhanshu Shekhar,
"Socialist Vietnam Demands Market Economy Status," 13 October 2009
AN Ram,
"India-ASEAN FTA: The Road Ahead," 7 September 2009
Tuli Sinha,
"The India-ASEAN FTA: An assessment," 24 August 2009
Tuli Sinha,
"India-ASEAN FTA and India’s Northeast," 9 June 2009

Browse by Publications

Commentaries 
Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 
China 
Myanmar 
Afghanistan 
Iran 
Pakistan 
India 
J&K  

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Indo-Pak 
Military 
Terrorism 
Naxalite Violence 
Nuclear 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Crisis in Thailand-III: Assessing Human Rights Concerns

US and Kopassus Training: Strategic and Legal Aspects

Counter-Terrorism in Indonesia: The Price of Success

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
Facebook
 
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2014
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006
 2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998
 1997
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map | IPCS Email
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
Email:
© Copyright 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design by http://www.indiainternets.com