Why isn’t Asia a focus for third-party conflict management? Asia has a high number of warring parties and long-lasting civil wars. Yet it receives relatively little attention from third parties. This article from the journal Negotiation focuses on Southeast Asia, where most Asian civil wars take place, and examines the effectiveness of third-party involvement. It argues in the absence of adequate diplomacy, peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction, civil wars in Southeast Asia will continue to pose a serious threat to regional and international security.
At the end of 2005, Asia had the highest number of internal conflicts, whereby one group was in conflict with the government over legitimacy or territory. In other regions, the number of these conflicts was either low or declining. In Africa, for example, there was a sharp drop between 2001 and 2005. Civil wars in Asia also last longer than in other regions. One would therefore expect Asia to be a focus of third-party conflict management, but it is not. Southeast Asia receives around the same amount of third-party attention as the Americas, though it has almost twice as many warring parties.
Conflicts in Southeast Asia are costly, intractable and defy attempts to end them. Original data on third-party involvement in Southeast Asian civil wars from 1993 to 2004 shows that:
- Conflicts in Southeast Asia tend to be asymmetrical, in that one party (usually a rebel group) is small and well outgunned and outmanned. Most of these groups fight in border areas, in rural-based civil wars that are low-intensity but persistent.
Bilateral talks are the most common approach to handing low-intensity, persistent civil wars in the region. However, mediation is more likely to lead to agreements between warring parties.
It is more common for third parties to engage in bilateral talks with the government side than with the rebels.
Where a third party does intervene it is more likely an outside party, usually an NGO, rather than a state. The Humanitarian Dialogue Centre (HDC), an NGO in Geneva, has been the most active third party in the region.
Third party interventions are neither as numerous nor effective as they should be in Southeast Asia. This has implications for regional and national security.
-
Neither the UN nor the major powers are in a position to terminate civil wars in Southeast Asia. This may be because warring parties are not compelled to find nonviolent solutions, or that conditions are just not conducive to third-party intervention.
The power imbalance between disputants and the nature of the issues (e.g. contraband, resources) may explain why so few regional states or organisations are keen to intervene.
When intervention does occur it is mostly by outside organisations or NGOs. This low-cost, low-stakes intervention is typical in the region. Such efforts, however, often lack the resources to reward parties or monitor transitions from war to peace.
Third party efforts to bring warring parties to agreement should be viewed as cumulative processes: impact can only be expected over a period of time.
Southeast Asia needs diplomacy based on local, regional and international resources, and a range of tools from peacekeeping to post-conflict reconstruction. Without these, civil wars in the region will continue to pose a serious threat to regional and international security.
