Jump directly to page content

Strategies for the ARF

BCAS, 15.12.2002

Strategies for the future of ARF

The way the European Commission sees ARF today, is that it has, albeit slowly, developed into an essential instrument for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Discussions in atmosphere of mutual trust and support are indeed encouraging. There may perhaps be no scientific evidence that regular interaction would result in greater confidence. However, in the case of ARF, the regional meetings have raised the comfort levels and thus created more openness. And the more openness there is, the more trust we achieve. Thus, the different participants have become more comfortable with the open discussions, and thus, the quality of the discussions has gone up. At the same time, ARF must be more than a "talking shop". EU fully supports evolution of ARF and will continue to contribute to strengthening it as it progresses towards preventive diplomacy. What we hope to do is to reinforce our participation by:

ARF members have a collective interest to assure that ARF becomes more operational. As the only broadly based forum for security dialogue, we have a collective obligation to make it operational - if not, interest will fade, which would be a pity. Therefore not only the ministerial meetings but technical meetings (Intersessional Support Groups meetings on Confidence Building Measures) are a key to build momentum in the direction of "operationalisation". The paper on preventive diplomacy has to be agreed upon and we have to make sure that fighting terrorism is part of the agenda. Discussions between ministers are but one part of the picture. The regular Intersessional Support Groups (ISG) on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), and all the CBMs in between are also very important. From the EU side we would tend to think that one of the key achievements of the ARF since its inception has been to develop a range of Confidence Building Measures, to contribute to mutual understanding, trust and transparency between ARF participants. We hope that this will continue to be a core function of the ARF as it evolves. This is also very much why the European Commission would like to see the EU become involved in the CBMs. Possible reforms of the process could establish greater effectiveness and credibility for the forum: The EU has always supported the development and evolution of the ARF and would like to see a move towards institutionalisation, but this can only be done if everyone is on board. While EU participation on military and defence issues has yet to take off, there is hope that the development of EDSP will enable the EU to increase its profile on these issues. Looking at the last ARF ministerial meeting (Brunei, July, 30-31, 2002), the EU supported strongly the establishment of an Intersessional meeting on counter-terrorism, which was built on a concept paper drafted by US and Malaysia. Indeed, to continue towards practical measures to combat international terrorism, such as border management discussions, rather than only condemning it in general terms, is something that the EU finds very positive. Another issue for the future of the ARF is the linkage between the first track and the second track that has been taken up, inter alia in the last ISG in November 2002. The 'second track' covers activities carried out by non-governmental entities, as discussed above. More cooperation between the two tracks would certainly be useful for the process. The Canadian discussion paper talks about Track I providing guidelines on which issues it would most welcome new approaches and thinking, whereas Track II would communicate its ideas in ways that complement policy making. This would certainly lead to increased confidence, just as the paper hopes. Something, which we regularly hear about, is the possibility of using the European OSCE experience for ARF matters. While there are some elements of our OSCE experience that might be relevant, it would be unwise to try to put forward the OSCE as a "model" for the very different conditions prevailing in Asia. Rather than using OSCE as a model, we could look at other proposals, on which I would be interested to hear your views:

  1. We have created the register of Eminent Experts and Persons - the EU was even the first partner who delivered their list of experts last year. Let us use these as much as possible, in the future also for conflict resolution.
  2. A strengthened role for the Chair would also help the process. It was a good sign that Cambodia, as ARF chair, issued a statement after the Bali bombings (even though we would have preferred to be more closely involved in the drafting).
  3. We should raise the involvement of defence officials. Their meetings are now regular, but could perhaps in the future also be taking place at a higher level as a confidence building measure. I must admit however that at the current state I am not sure that the EU could deliver fully here.
  4. We could increasingly put the discussions of subjects linked to security on the agenda - issues like poverty, allocation of resources etc, that are becoming increasingly important.

In general terms, we need to focus discussion so that we can demonstrate clearly the "value added" that the ARF can bring to crucial regional security issues in Asia.

Anna Carin Krokstäde

Anna Carin Krokstäde works as a principal administrator in the Asia Directorate of the External Relations DG of the European Commission. She has been working with Asian questions at the Commission since 1996, first with Japan, then with ASEM and now with foreign policy and security-related issues.
European Commission, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium, Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11.