ASEM 6

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to thank the organisers for inviting me to speak in this closing session of the conference. The theme “Connecting civil societies of Asia and Europe” is a very timely one and I am happy to contribute to the meeting. My comments will mainly deal with crisis management and peace building and the role of civil society in it. I will however start with ASEM’s role in Asia-Europe dialogue.

(ASEM's role in Asia-Europe dialogue and cooperation)

It is often repeated that ASEM partners represent 40% of the world’s population, 50% of the global GDP and 60% of the world trade. These figures certainly show that Asia and Europe need each other in an interconnected and interdependent world. Looking back on the past ten years, I think it is clear that ASEM has great potential to function as a tool to find answers to globally and regionally important questions. ASEM has certainly contributed to building consensus on issues of common interest, and to promoting awareness between Asia and Europe. It has also facilitated progress in other bilateral and multilateral fora. It is equally true that not all of ASEM’s potential is currently used: it could be used more to tackle some of the difficult issues and concerns of the civil societies.

(The important role of regional integration processes and community building)

In my view one of ASEM's most important achievements has been its contribution to the reinforcement of regional identities and processes of community building in East Asia. ASEM provided the impetus for Asian partners to coordinate ahead of meetings with the European Union. ASEM can therefore be seen as instrumental in promoting dialogue, not only between the EU and Asia, but also within Asia. The East Asia Summit (EAS) is an encouraging sign of this increased regional cooperation, with ASEAN as the driving force.

Processes of integration and community building have proven their importance in promoting peace and stability in different regions. The European Union is perhaps the best example of this. 
During the recent years, the determination of regional organizations to improve their crisis management capacities has been tangible. Security and strategic concerns are something that unite regional organizations’ member states and encourage them also to pursue other activities in the context of regional collaboration. Shift from multi- and bilateral security policy towards a regional approach has become a more common method of conflict management. Regional organizations have a number of assets that traditional multilateral actors (i.e. the UN ) lack. They can also utilise sub-regional organisations’ capacities in a much more effective manner than the multilaterals (UN).

(Crisis prevention and management)

In the era of globalisation, distant threats are just as serious as more locally defined ones, and prevention is increasingly essential. Also in the field of crisis management, the EU has taken the frontrunner’s role, in particular in the development of a comprehensive crisis management system. An important dialogue has started on how to better utilize the NGO experience and expertise in the work of multilateral and regional organizations.

During the past years, the European Union has contributed, through its civilian crisis management tools, to solving of conflicts and assisting war-torn societies towards sustainable peace and a democracy. At the same time, NGOs have carried out similar tasks. Therefore, there is a tangible need to achieve greater conceptual coherence about the overall strategy and goals of civilian crisis management between the EU and non-governmental organisations.

Civilian crisis management policies and practices are currently being developed and debated by many stakeholders. The traditional approach towards civilian crisis management emphasises issues such as police training, border control, peace monitoring etc. At the same time there seems to be a growing need for broader peace building strategies that treat the development of societies in a comprehensive manner. In these post-conflict developments the role of local civil society is pivotal.

Civil society forms a large, diverse and fragmented body of organisations. NGOs vary from the very large to the extremely small in all aspects including legitimacy, reliability, aims, roles, staff, financial resources, capacity and geographical reach.

The roles of civil society actors in civilian crisis management cover the broad spectrum of engagement in early warning, prevention, mediation, monitoring, civilian peacekeeping, and reconciliation. While civil society roles and the actors performing them are numerous and diverse, they typically share a common approach that is community-based or ‘bottom-up’. It follows that civil society organisations often have unique access to the ‘ground truth’ and are well placed to monitor and potentially mobilise public support.

Furthermore, NGOs can provide informal mediation between participants. They use mediation techniques, such as problem-solving workshops, where participants are encouraged to look beyond territorial, legal, or military issues and instead focus on issues such as fears and insecurities, misperceptions and misunderstandings, which underpin conflict. This work can be vital in encouraging parties to adopt a more compromising approach prior to the beginning of formal negotiations.

What is too little utilized in peacemaking and peacekeeping is research. Academic institutions and think tanks can generate high-quality and policy relevant analysis on the root causes of crises and develop innovative frameworks for crisis resolution and for overcoming broader instability. They can also gather and distribute information and expertise within the existing crisis management field operations.

There is a lot of uncertainty about the actual added value and effectiveness of NGOs and civil society actors as such in peace building and peace mediation. It seems that NGOs are able to provide a variety of conflict management roles by providing early warning of impending conflict, by acting as channels off communication, by serving as mediators or facilitators of official or unofficial negotiations, by contributing to the process of reconciliation through grassroots engagements and by strengthening the civil society in the post-conflict environment to nurture the culture of peace.

NGOs can also, through their experience, contribute into innovative conflict management and resolution strategies. Local NGOs can be instrumental in addressing the escalation of violence and emergence of war. They can mobilise, at its best, political will for peace; develop options and strategies for response by strengthening constituencies for peace. They can engage into Track Two dialogues by using their unofficial and low-key statues but also to bring the peacemaking further from reaching the political agreement between the main parties by creating conditions for pragmatic peace at local levels.

There are also limits to the involvement of NGOs. Sometimes the civil society actors start processes that are beyond their skills and abilities. They may also be too small, too isolated or to lack capacity to work with each other. Also sometimes the legitimacy of NGOs as actors is questioned, which hampers their involvement. The fact that civil society organisations can be perceived by many parties to the conflict powerless may increase their attractiveness to the antagonists: if the attempt to open the dialogue fails the parties lose little by way of reputation or potential inducements to settle.

There is also a growing potential for the business sector in peacemaking and peace building. There is a growing acknowledgement that although often bound up with conflict dynamics, local business actors in conflict prone countries can also have an interest in securing peace. To date, this complex of relationships between local business and conflict has not been well understood.

For donors and development agencies there is much to be learned from sharing experiences on how to integrate a role for the private sector around peace building and growth in an immediate post-conflict environment. In these situations, there are real opportunities for changes in policies and institutions that affect the private sector and experience is showing that there is a role for the domestic private sector in crisis prevention and growth.

(Aceh as an example)

The Aceh peace process can act as a good example for both the cooperation between the first and second tracks of diplomacy and the cooperation between the European and Asian countries in crisis management.

I had the privilege to act as facilitator in the Aceh peace process, in its negotiation phase. In January 2005 in Helsinki the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement met to talk about the conflict that had lasted for almost 30 years. The tsunami had devastated Aceh just a month earlier. The Government and GAM decided to end fighting and decided to work towards a fair and democratic society. The conflict ended as the negotiating parties promised and peace has brought hope and possibilities for new life for the Acehnese.

With so many peace processes failing already in the negotiation phase, I am often asked how we were able to agree on the Helsinki agreement during such a short negotiation process. I have listed six primary reasons for the success of the negotiation process:

- Political will of the parties
- The skills and resolve of the negotiators in both delegations
- Right timing
- Post-Tsunami environment, bringing about heightened international attention in Aceh and a sense of urgency to resolve the conflict
- Multi-track process: flexibility of the NGO facilitator combined with the leverage of the regional organisations and key states. CMI’s networks for example in the EU and with other NGOs and research organisations were invaluable. Also the support of the Finnish Government from the beginning was key.
- Well functioning monitoring mechanism provided by the EU and the five ASEAN countries.

It was crucial that the peace agreement was followed by a credible international monitoring mission that ensures that both parties implement their obligations. The Aceh Monitoring Mission has become one of the key components of the implementation of the agreement and has shown that Asia and Europe can successfully act together in crisis management.

Early on in the negotiations it was quite evident to me that organisations of regional basis - the EU and the ASEAN - could have a significant role in the process. It was equally evident that the organisations could only have this role together, possibly with support of countries like Norway and Switzerland. Combined they could have the right profile. Combined they could have the expertise, cultural knowledge and credibility that was needed for the assignment.

The Aceh Monitoring Mission is so far the best and most concrete example of cooperation between Europe and Asia in the field of peace building and crisis management. First and foremost, the Mission has had an indispensably important role in monitoring the implementation of the Aceh Peace Accord and consolidating thereby the process within its first vital months and first year. This has, naturally, been the very purpose of the mission. This is not, however, by any means the only important outcome that the monitoring cooperation has generated. This Europe-Asia teamwork has proven the strength of the regional approach and given valuable lessons that can be utilised also in other civilian crisis management operations. It has also pointed out, I believe, the growing potential of cooperation between Europe and Asia also in other areas.

(Conclusion: The future of ASEM and its role in Asia-Europe relations)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

At present Asia-Europe cooperation is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Cooperation is essentially rooted in constructive dialogue. ASEM occupies a unique position in facilitating such a dialogue between Europe and Asia.

Expanded cooperation with Asia is vital in order to contribute to global peace and security. Close cooperation within the ASEM partnership, complementing ongoing work within the Asian Regional Forum, allows Europe and Asia to tackle common challenges.

Crisis management and prevention is a field in which dialogue is of course of vital importance. I think that ASEM holds great potential to develop more in-depth interaction, in particular in regional security issues and cooperation. Dialogue is at the core of the Asia-Europe Meeting. ASEM should therefore further develop this role as a dialogue-facilitator also on regional issues.

In my view the dialogue on security should become a core field for ASEM. Particularly in the field of new security issues and global threats ASEM partners should create a clear common vision. The informal, flexible and open nature of the dialogue allows for a multidimensional approach and an honest exchange of views. Furthermore it can promote, trust, confidence, and consensus, and thereby lay the foundations for more binding negotiations.