Acuns newsletter issue 1, 2018

enjoy as part of your ACUNS membership

quarterly Newsletter issue 1 > 2018

one hundred years since the great war’s end: time to transform the united nations through just security

special feature:

security in times of uncertainty in asia: bringing the state back in?

connect with us

Q > contents quarterly

feature one

one hundred years since the great war’s end: time to transform the united nations through just security | 3 Richard Ponzio | Director of the Just Security 2020 Program, Stimson Center, Washington DC William Durch | Distinguished Fellow and former Co-Director, Future of Peace Operations Program, Stimson Center, Washington DC Joris Larik | Assistant Professor of Comparative, EU and International Law at Leiden University and Senior Researcher at The Hague Institute for Global Justice

feature two

security in times of uncertainty in asia: bringing the state back in? | 7 Mely Caballero-Anthony | Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Photo: www.luiss.edu

human rights, migration, and global governance

AM18 John W. Holmes Me mori al lecture

Lorraine Elliott Chair, ACUNS Board of Directors; Professor Emerita in the Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University; adjunct faculty in the Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security and Global Governance at the McCormack Graduate School at University of Massachusetts Boston; Senior Research Fellow with the Earth System Governance programme.

View her full biography at acuns.org

2018 acuns annual meeting

Thursday – Saturday > July 12–14, 2018 LUISS University, Rome, Italy Hosted by Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli

welcome to acuns

starting point

Alistair Edgar, Executive Director, ACUNS Associate Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University E > aedgar@wlu.ca

Brenda Burns, Co-ordinator T > 226.772.3142 F > 226.772.0016 E > bburns@wlu.ca

Gwenith Cross, Program Support T > 226.772.3121 E > gcross@acuns.org

Board members 2017-2018

ACUNS is governed by an international Board of Directors: Chair: Lorraine Elliott, Australian National University Chair Elect: Roger Coate, Georgia College Vice Chair: Charlotte Ku, Texas A&M University School of Law Vice Chair: Kurt Mills, University of Dundee Ingvild Bode, University of Kent Stephen Browne, Graduate Institute, Geneva Eunsook Chung, Sejong Institute Annalisa Ciampi, University of Verona Cristián Gimenez Corte, Universidad Nacional del Litoral Mary Farrell, University of Plymouth Otto Spijkers, Utrecht University

news & opinions

Meeting on a common ground to promote change, develop a global vision for gender equity and equality and navigate peace and security issues amidst a rapid groundswell of complexity

secretariat staff

T > 226.772.3167

up2date

Dr. Alistair Edgar, ACUNS

2018 has seen a busy beginning for us at the ACUNS Secretariat, as we have continued to build the program for the Annual Meeting at LUISS Guido Carli University in Rome, on the theme Human Rights, Migration and Global Governance. Our plenary speakers will include senior representatives of UNU, UNOPS, and the FAO, as well as leading Italian and international scholars. We will continue to add to the program as confirmations solidify.

Regular updates and details can be found on our website: http://acuns.org/am2018/ As always, we welcome Workshop paper proposals on the core theme as well as on all other dimensions of the United Nations’ work, and related themes of global governance.

Our deadline for the first round of Workshop panel submissions was February 5th (2 days hence as I am writing this piece) and we already have a thick file of proposals in hand.

We will review, select and notify everyone as quickly as possible, and will then keep a more informal, ‘rolling’ process open afterwards for any remaining places or to replace any who withdraw—but please do check our policies and deadlines on withdrawals!

Regrettably, I was unable to attend the ACUNS Vienna Liaison Office’s annual conference which took place in mid-January in Vienna. This year focused on Achieving Gender Equality and Female Empowerment: A Collaborative Vision of SDG 5. The conference organization was led by Heather Wokusch and Mona Zaher, and supported by a dedicated team of volunteers. Only they know just how much work and countless hours they had to put in to make the event such a great success: for those of you who were in attendance and engaged in the discussions, you will have seen only a small fraction of the hours invested to host the event so seamlessly. As colleagues, we in Waterloo provided some minor support, and send our thanks and congratulations to Heather, Mona, and all in the Vienna Office for a job well done. I hope you have been able to catch up a little on your rest!

Approximately two weeks ago, ACUNS collaborated with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung New York office and One Earth Future Foundation to hold a seminar in New York, this time on the topic of “Providing security in times of uncertainty: Mosaic security systems and the UN’s quest for coherence while sustaining peace.” The focus was the recently released report of the FES Global Reflection Group, Monopoly on the Use of Force 2.0. The report was presented by Dr. Mely Caballero-Anthony of Nanyang Technological University Singapore and Dr. Eboe Hutchful of Wayne State University— both also members of the Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Affairs— with discussion by Robert Pulver from DPKO and Michael von der Schulenberg, former Executive Representative for UNIPSIL and Deputy Special Representative Political Affairs of UNAMI. Both FES-NY and OEF intend to continue with this valuable cooperation to advance practical and policy focused discussions on key issues of global governance.

A brief by Dr. Caballero-Anthony is reprinted in this Newsletter, with her permission and that of FES-NY. As I closed my note in the last Newsletter of 2017, so I do again for the first of 2018: I hope that you will join us in beautiful Rome this coming July—for what promises to be an excellent Annual Meeting, and the last that one that our team in Waterloo will be organizing before we pass the torch—one whose theme couldn’t be more critical and more timely.

A C U N S q uarterl y newsletter > issue 1 > 2 0 1 8

acuns . org 2

feature one

achieving security & justice

Feature story

one hundred YEARS

100 3

SINCE THE GREAT WAR’S END

TIME TO TRANSFORM THE UNITED NATIONS THROUGH JUST SECURITY one hundred YEARS AGO on November 11, 1918, the guns fell silent on the Western Front as the Allied Powers of World War I and Germany signed an armistice in Compiègne, France, marking the end of the Great War. Building on Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”, introduced before the U.S. Congress on January 8, 1918, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles would soon usher in a new era of international relations, with the creation of the League of Nations as a new kind of international collective security arrangement for the prevention of future wars.

What soon transpired is well-trodden history for scholars in our ACUNS community. Henry Cabot Lodge and his fellow Republican Senators managed to undermine U.S. entry into the League, despite support from 32 state legislatures. In time, the world’s first major attempt at a universal international organization would collapse under the contradictions of continued empires, excessive war reparations and the extremist and violent political forces they helped to flourish, American isolationism, a global recession and beggar-thyneighbor trade policies, and the looming threat of another world war.

how can humankind manage global problems to achieve both security and justice? we offer just security as a new framework for charting innovative solutions and strategies for effective and essential global governance

I

n the immediate aftermath of World War II, a second-generation international organization experiment, the United Nations, emerged. Over more than seven decades, its pivotal Security Council—led by the “Permanent Five” victors of the Second World War—has successfully prevented hot wars between the Great Powers, while having a mixed record of success elsewhere, with, for instance, the number of major violent conflicts tripling since 2010 and more countries experiencing violent conflict in 2016 than at any time in nearly 30 years (UCDP 2017).1

Meanwhile, global connectivity continues to increase, visibly and invisibly—in trade, finance, culture, and information—helping to spur economic growth, technological advance, and greater understanding and freedom. However, global disconnects are growing as well. Ubiquitous electronics rely on high-value minerals scraped from the earth by miners kept poor by corruption and war. People abandon burning states for the often indifferent welcome of wealthier lands whose people, in turn, draw into themselves. Humanity’s very success, underwritten in large part by lighting up gigatons of long-buried carbon for the past two centuries, now threatens humanity’s future. In an age of seeming antithesis, how can humankind manage global problems to achieve both security and justice?

This is the fundamental question we set out to explore, along with 22 other scholars and practitioners, in the recently published book Just Security in an Undergoverned World (Oxford University Press, January 2018). As the companion volume to the 2015 Albright-Gambari Commission on Global Security, Justice & Governance Report, entitled “Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance” and produced by The Hague Institute for Global Justice and the Stimson Center, we examined four major global problem-sets through the lens of “just security”: conflict and fragility, climate and people, the hyperconnected global economy, and reforming the United Nations.

Just security is a partly normative and partly operational prism through which to analyze global problems, the urgency and desirability of various measures to manage them, and the institutions, programs, and organizational structures supporting those measures, from the combined perspectives of security and justice. By “security” we mean the minimum conditions that allow people to think, plan, and live beyond the requirements of short-term self-preservation; the ability of the state to defend territory, wield preponderant coercive capacity within it, achieve political legitimacy, and collect and use tax revenues for legitimate social purposes; and the continued stable functioning of essential global systems. By “justice” we mean the realization of such fundamental governing principles as equality before the law, and fairness, accountability, and democratic participation in governance at all levels, from local to global. By using just security as a lens, we mean the joint consideration of these principles and conditions when developing or evaluating public policies, programs, or institutions.

In researching our book, we observed that global governance institutions established after World War II to manage global threats, especially the twin scourges of war and poverty, have expanded in reach and impact, while paradoxically losing the political support of some of their wealthiest and most powerful members. Their problems mimic those of their members in struggling to adapt to new problems and maintain trust in norms and public bodies. We argue, however, that a properly mandated, managed, and modernized global architecture offers unparalleled potential to midwife solutions to intractable issues that transcend borders and the capacities of individual actors. In this vein, we offer just security as a new framework for charting innovative solutions and strategies for effective and essential global governance.

1 Uppsala Conflict Data Program, UCDP Conflict Encyclopedia, Uppsala: University of Uppsala, 2017.

A C U N S q uarterl y newsletter > issue 1 > 2 0 1 8

> richard ponzio Director of the just security 2020 program, stimson Center, Washington DC

> william durch Distinguished fellow and former Co-director, future of peace operations program, stimson center, Washington dc

> joris larik assistant professor of Comparative, Eu and International law, leiden university and senior researcher, the hague institute for global Justice

Continued on next page > acuns . org 4

Continued from previous page >

A transitional strategy for reform: 2020, 2025, and 2045 In response to their own detailed analysis within the abovementioned four thematic global problem-sets, the contributing authors to Just Security in an Undergoverned World presented several forward-leaning global governance innovations, from a Global Economic Coordination Council, Green Climate Technology Licensing Facility, and UN Parliamentary Network to a new Peacebuilding Audit tool for preventive action through the Peacebuilding Commission and a creative “8+8+8” UN Security Council expansion proposal. Some reform ideas may be ripe for the United Nations’ 75th anniversary commemoration in 2020, in less than three years, in New York, while others requiring different political conditions and possibly Charter reform—such as the Global Economic Coordination Council recommended by Professor José Antonio Ocampo (currently Co-Director of Colombia’s Central Bank)— may need to wait until at least 2025 (UN 80).

change may be possible through a carefully designed and skillfully led transitional strategy for reform.

Yet other even more ambitious initiatives, such as Professor Vesselin Popovski’s dramatic 8+8+8 overhaul of the Security Council, is purposely designed to be sequenced over decades, perhaps culminating in time for the world body’s centennial in 2045.

Transforming the United Nations into, in effect, a radically upgraded and far more consequential third-generation international organization capable of averting a third world war or other cataclysmic events is unlikely to happen overnight. Rather, change may be possible through a carefully designed and skillfully led transitional strategy for reform.

It must harness the networks, capabilities, and ideas of a range of diverse actors, including states, civil society groups, business leaders, journalists and scholars, social and religious movements, and a politically adept UN Secretary-General. And it should glean the normative and operational insights generated by understanding today’s global challenges, threats, and opportunities through a joint analysis of security and justice imperatives in global governance, i.e., employing a just security conceptual framework.

This effort must commence soon to ensure sufficient time for bold and enlightened leadership to undertake the preparatory spade-work needed for success in the run-up to a September 2020 gathering of world leaders in New York. A UN Summit on renewal, innovation, and reform—that extends far beyond a box-checking five-year review of the Sustainable Development Goals—could be initiated in the coming months through the UNGA Revitalization Committee. Alternatively, a new UN 75 friends group is expected to take shape soon, building on a similar UN 70 configuration, and could galvanize a smart transnational coalition for change. Global civil society, especially through the nascent United Nations 2020 Initiative, will also have a major say in determining whether the 2020 Summit represents a step forward in transforming the world body into a leading force for good, in support of the more than seven billion people that now inhabit our ever more crowded, polluted, and conflict-prone planet.

Special 30% discount for members of ACUNS* *Offer valid until May 31st 2018. Go to politybooks.com and quote code WEI18

Would the World Be Better Without the UN? Thomas G. Weiss “I salute this book because it helps us to understand the crucial importance of the UN in tackling the considerable challenges facing the world today. Tom Weiss has engagingly and honestly asked a very tough question - Would the World Be Better without the UN? His negative reply is an indispensable guide for anyone worried about the future of the planet and of the UN.” Kofi A. Annan, former UN Secretary-General

978-1-5095-1726-8 | March 2018 Paperback | 240 pages | $24.95 $17.45

Thomas G. Weiss is Presidential Professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center and Director Emeritus of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies.

politybooks.com 5

acuns . org

What’s Wrong with the United Nations and How to Fix It 3rd Edition Thomas G. Weiss “An indispensable guide for understanding both the pathology and the promise of the United Nations: love for the UN doesn’t come any tougher. Tom Weiss, who has been a keen observer and sophisticated analyst of the UN system for decades, puts his deep expertise to good use in this seminal contribution to diagnosing what ails the world organization and prescribing the appropriate remedies.”

Ramesh Thakur, The Australian National University, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, and Editor-in-Chief, Global Governance

“A comprehensive and extremely thoughtful analysis by the leading scholar of the UN in the United States, this should be on the required reading list for the US president, and the leaders of other nations as well.”

Craig N. Murphy, Wellesley College and University of Massachusetts Boston

978-1-5095-0744-3 | 2016 Paperback | 304 pages | $24.95 $17.45

member publications

MPub

Rethinking Global Democracy in Brazil

Just Security in an Undergoverned World

Markus Fraundorfer | Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017

William Durch, Joris Larik, and Richard Ponzio (editors) Oxford University Press, 2018

In recent years, a growing literature has focused on how to create more effective and democratic global governance mechanisms to better tackle global challenges such as health epidemics, global hunger, Internet surveillance or the consequences of climate change.

Yet there is a gap in accessible published material to reflect contributions of democratic states from the global South.

Among these democracies from the global South, Brazil is a popular case for teachers and researchers looking to study global governance mechanisms. This book provides students with a framework that challenges the Western-centred views on questions of how to democratise global governance processes, arguing that developing democracies from the global South have developed serious and sustainable approaches to a more democratic global system.

With chapters on Brazil’s responses to global food security, the purchase of drugs, open government initiatives and internet governance, this book opens up contemporary and novel practices of democracy for examination.

What Can Save UNESCO? Klaus Hüfner | Frank & Timme, 2016 Money is not everything, but without money, all is nothing.

Since 2011, all regular budget plans of UNESCO lapsed. Why? The United States decided not to pay their share to the regular budget because of the admission of Palestine as a Member State.

This political decision has serious consequences for the continued existence of the Organization, because the financial crisis shows not only a structural crisis but also a survival crisis of UNESCO. Nevertheless, no one dares to question the current structure. Among other things, the author proposes: given the multiplicity of heterogeneous tasks of UNESCO it is essential to reduce and concentrate them. UNESCO should act as a think tank within the United Nations system and link the world of states and the specialized NGOs. He calls for a stronger commitment of the Member States for and within UNESCO in order to preserve the Organization from decay.

Moral Victories: The Ethics of Winning Wars Andrew R. Hom, Cian O’Driscoll, and Kurt Mills (editors) Oxford University Press, 2018 What does it mean to win a moral victory? Ideals of just and decisive triumphs often colour the call to war, yet victory is an increasingly dubious proposition in modern conflict, where negotiated settlements and festering violence have replaced formal surrenders. In the Just War and strategic studies traditions, assumptions about victory also underpin decisions to go to war but become more problematic in discussions about its conduct and conclusion. So although winning is typically considered the very object of war, we lack a clear understanding of victory itself. Likewise, we lack reliable resources for discerning a just from an unjust victory, for balancing the duty to fight ethically with the obligation to win, and for assessing the significance of changing ways of war for moral judgment.

Though not amenable to easy answers, these important questions are both perennial and especially urgent. This book brings together a group of leading scholars from various disciplines to tackle them. It covers both traditions of victory – charting the historically variable notion of victory and the dialogues and fissures this opens in the just war and strategic canons – along with contemporary challenges of victory- analysing how new security contexts put pressure on these fissures and working toward clearer ideas about victory today. The result is a wide-ranging and timely collection of essays that bridges the gap between ethical, strategic, and historical approaches to war and develops new ways of thinking about it as a practical and moral proposition.

Just Security in an Undergoverned World examines how humankind can manage global problems to achieve both security and justice in an age of antithesis. Global connectivity is increasing, visibly and invisibly-in trade, finance, culture, and information-helping to spur economic growth, technological advance, and greater understanding and freedom, but global disconnects are growing as well. Ubiquitous electronics rely on high-value minerals scraped from the earth by miners kept poor by corruption and war. People abandon burning states for the often indifferent welcome of wealthier lands whose people, in turn, draw into themselves. Humanity’s very success, underwritten in large part by lighting up gigatons of long-buried carbon for 200 years, now threatens humanity’s future.

The global governance institutions established after World War Two to manage global threats, especially the twin scourges of war and poverty, have expanded in reach and impact, while paradoxically losing the political support of their wealthiest and most powerful members. Their problems mimic those of their members in struggling to adapt to new problems and maintain trust in institutions. This volume argues, however, that a properly mandated, managed, and modernized global architecture offers unparalleled potential from midwife solutions to vexing issues that transcend borders and capacities of individual actors, and from conflict and climate change to poverty and pandemic disease.

The volume offers ‘just security’ as a new framework for evaluating innovative solutions and strategies for institutional reform.

Historical Dictionary of the United Nations Second edition Jacques Fomerand | Rowman & Littlefield, 2018 The second edition of this book is structured around the main themes of the series it belongs to. A detailed chronology maps out the expansion of the Organization. The substantive introduction weighs the achievements of the United Nations against its failures. The “Dictionary” itself contains more than 1,000 cross-referenced entries documenting the work and activities of UN bodies, related agencies, outstanding figures in its history and non-state actors. A substantial bibliography directs readers to key sources of information. This book is an excellent resource for students, researchers and the general public interested in knowing more about the United Nations.

Towards a United Nations Renaissance: Re-Thinking Values, Structures & Processes John E. Trent and Laura Schnurr Barbara Budrich Publishers, 2017 In a time of growing disenchantment with global institutions and the open liberal values they embody, we risk reversing significant gains made in international cooperation and retreating to nationalism and bilateral relations. Yet today’s challenges transcend national borders and demand effective global governance.

This short introduction to the United Nations analyses the organization as it is today, and how it can be transformed to respond to its critics. Combining essential information about its history and workings with practical proposals of how it can be strengthened, Trent and Schnurr examine what needs to be done, but also how we can actually move toward the required reforms.

This book is written for a new generation of changemakers—a generation seeking better institutions that reflect the realities of the 21st century and that can act collectively in the interest of all.

Enjoy a good book?

interested in writing a review? visit http://acuns.org/books-available-for-review/

A C U N S q uarterl y newsletter > issue 1 > 2 0 1 8

S e e m o r e B o o k s b y M e m b e r s a t acuns . or g

acuns . org 6

state and human security

feature two

special report > m e ly c a b a l l e r o -An t h o n y

security in times of uncertainty bringing the state : in asia back in?

Associate professor and director of the centre for non-traditional security (NTS) studies at the S. Rajaratnam school of international studies (RSIS), Nanyanag Technological university, singapore

The Global Reflection Group “Monopoly on the Use of Force 2.0?” was established by the Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung (FES) in 2014. The work by this group of global experts culminated in the report “Providing Security in Times of Uncertainty.” In January 2018, Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung, One Earth Future Research, and ACUNS hosted a seminar in New York City on “Providing Security in Times of Uncertainty: Mosaic Security Systems and the UN’s Quest for Coherence While Sustaining Peace.” The following article is a think piece produced for FES and reprinted in its entirety.

7

a

cross the world today, we see a growing list of security challenges affecting both state and human security. The threats we are seeing span a wide range of security issues from the conventional inter- and intra-state conflicts brought on by territorial and maritime disputes, arms race and nuclear proliferation, to a host of non-traditional security challenges. The latter type of security threats is significantly challenging given their scale, complexity and transnational impact that defy state borders and controls. These kinds of threats include cybersecurity, new faces of terrorism and radical extremism, highly pathogenic pandemics, and severe weather events brought on by global warming.

With all these new types of security challenges also remain many intractable intra-state conflicts stemming from ethnic tensions and societal fault lines, exacerbated by severe economic conditions and grave environmental degradation leading to extreme poverty, famine, strife and forced migration. The list of security threats from the local to the international level can be overwhelming, leading to concerns about prospects for global peace and security.

Against this rapidly changing security environment, we observe two opposing trends.

On one hand, the ability and capacity of states as security provider(s) have been severely challenged given the new security realities in the twenty-first century. This has led to the emer­gence of other actors that engage in functions that were considered the domain of states, i.e. security provision and the monopoly of the legitimate use of force.

Seen from the perspective of security governance, we now see multiple sites of authorities.

The consequence of such development is a fragmented, often chaotic security environment where numerous actors engage in the business of providing security and violent activities, which endangers more people than it protects.

a mosaic of security arrangements now characterizes the global security environment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ASIAN SECURITY The analyses and the findings of the Report of the Reflection Group resonate well with imperatives of achieving peace and security in Asia. In a highly diverse regional environment with different political systems, the enduring dominance of the state and its role in providing security are distinctive features in most states in the region. But there are also palpable changes in efforts by a range of actors and institutions to help regional states and its people achieve equitable and inclusive security against the many security challenges confronting the region.

on the other hand, in spite of the flaws and limitations of the state and its political institutions to provide security, it is still the state that people generally turn to for their security, safety and justice. At the same time at the global level, the norms and rules of international order are based on the sovereignty of nation-states. The state therefore still remains the recognized actor in the conduct of international affairs and in the negotiation of international treaties and agreements.

These two contending trends present new dilemmas and challenges as the international community confront a plethora of issues affecting international peace and security.

These trends and other associated issues of state formation and political systems were among the many topics that were analyzed by the Reflection Group and formed the bases for the findings and recommendation contained in the Report of the Reflection Group, entitled “Providing Security in Times of Uncertainty: Opting for a Mosaic Security System,” (FES, 2017). The Report presents the realities of a changed security environment where the state is no longer the uncontested security actor. It also recognizes the proliferation of different actors and the presence of several competing institutions and frameworks that deal with matters of security, at multiple levels—from the local to the regional and international arena.

The Report therefore notes that a mosaic of security arrangements now characterizes the global security environment. Against these salient developments in the international system, the Report argues for a two-pronged approach in realizing the shared objective of achieving a more “equitable and inclusive security” for all.

This approach begins with upholding the norms of state responsibility to provide security, while recognizing the role and potential of the multiplicity of actors that are also able to provide security and engaging with them in a more coordinated manner to establish a legitimate, effective and sustainable security architecture.

Indeed, much has changed in Asia’s security environment. Although Asia, particularly East Asia, is now seen as the new economic powerhouse, its security outlook still appears to be laden with uncertainties.

From the changing dynamics in the balance of power between the US and China, an emboldened North Korea with nuclear power capabilities and the prospects of nuclear arms race and the threat of the different shades of terrorism and radical extremism, there are serious concerns about the prospects for peace and security in the region. There is also the shared anxiety among many in the regional community about the resurgence of nationalism and the seeming retreat from multilateralism by big powers that cast a long shadow over the sustainability of a rules-based international order.

Most recently, Southeast Asia has had to deal with new faces of terrorism and radical extremism with the presence of extremist groups like Al Qaeda, Jemaah lslamiah and ISIS in the region. In countries like the Philippines and Indonesia, the presence of these terrorist and extremists groups have compounded its long standing problems of ethnic separatism with separatist groups often regarded as working with or transforming themselves to become part of the terrorist groups like ISIS. As example is the recent security crisis in Marawi City, Philippines where a terrorist group called the Mautes comprised of some members of the separatist groups like the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Abu Sayaaf Group (ASG) attempted to take over the city and establish a caliphate in Asia.

The region had also experienced a string of crises and emergencies that affected several states. These included the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997–98, public health emergencies from the outbreaks of pandemics like SARS, H5-N 1, MERS and transboundary environmental haze pollutions that resulted in huge economic losses and loss of lives. Moreover, many states also had to deal with numerous catastrophic disasters both natural and man-made that led to complex humanitarian emergencies and forced migration. Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines in 2014 was one of the most intense tropical cyclones in decades which displaced over 4 million people. The conflict in the Rakhine State of Myanmar in 2015 and which became more intense in 2017 caused the highest number of forced migration in Southeast Asia as hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees were forced to leave Myanmar to neighbouring Bangladesh, fleeing from the violence and human right atrocities committed by military forces in Rakhine.

To be sure, the features of these traditional and non-traditional threats have had important implications on the evolving patterns of security provision at the national level and nature of security governance at the regional level. The transborder nature of many security problems has made it difficult for states in the region to contain the impacts of these threats within their borders and effective security governance has been beyond the capacity of any individual government. More significantly, with many developing states disproportionately affected by the impact of large-scale natural disasters, pandemics and terrorist attacks largely also due to their constraints in capacity and resources—questions about the ability of states to provide security have been raised. The transnationality, scale and complexity of many security challenges have therefore given rise to the need to involve more actors in security governance in order to expand the bases of capacity, resource and expertise to deal with these challenges.

Against this imperative, however, is the fact that while there are compelling reasons to expand the space of security governance, a majority of Asian countries still adhere to the traditional understanding of sovereignty and therefore uphold the state’s primary role in providing security to its population. As a consequence, tensions between state authorities and non-state actors like NGOs, CSOs, international bodies like the UNHCR, ICRC and the IMO have often emerged. Despite well-meaning intentions to provide assistance in times of crisis, the legitimacy of external actors’ assistance and intervention is still dependent on the consent from the national government of the state concerned. For instance, after Cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar in May 2008, the Myanmar government did not allow international humanitarian assistance, even though the humanitarian consequences of the disaster were beyond the government’s capacity. While there were even calls for a military operation to open humanitarian access by some NGOs and western diplomats, the mainstream opinion among Asian countries was to persuade the Myanmar government to open up through quiet diplomacy, avoiding publicity and international attention. A similar approach has been adopted in the aftermath of the violence that caused the mass exodus of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar.

Some member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) had to quietly persuade the authorities in Naypitaw to allow humanitarian assistance from ASEAN and other NGOs to reach the affected communities within Myanmar and the refugee camps just outside its border. With these constraints, how might the two­pronged recommended in the Report of the Reflection to advance inclusive security be implemented in Asia?

Continued on next page > A C U N S q uarterl y newsletter > issue 1 > 2 0 1 8

acuns . org 8

How might the two-pronged approach recommended in the report of the Reflection to advance inclusive security be implemented in asia?

Continued from previous page >

PATHWAYS TO A COORDINATED MOSAIC SECURITY ARCHITECTURE FOR ASIA At the outset, it is important to recognize that ideas and recommendations toward better coordination of security arrangements at the local and regional levels in Asia cannot ignore the reality that sovereignty and non-interference are the governing principles that define the conduct of relations in the region. This does not mean however that efforts have not been done to work around these normative constraints to create spaces to advance the goal of inclusive security. Within the context of East Asia and particularly the sub-region of Southeast Asia, the initiatives by ASEAN to build an ASEAN Political and Security Community (APSC) reflect the work by states and with the support of the epistemic communities, CSOs and NGOs to strengthen the normative foundation of inter- and intra-state conduct. The APSC reflects the aspirations of ASEAN to “ensure a rules-based and inclusive community in which peoples enjoy human rights, fundamental freedoms and social justice, live in a safe and secure envi­ronment with enhanced capacity to respond effectively to emerging challenges ...”.1 The frequent use of the language of community in many official pronouncements is indicative of the shared goals of the states and peoples of the region maintain peace and build a resilient region for the common good of all the peoples in the region.

Thus, as ASEAN and other regional states come to grips with multifaceted security challenges facing the regional and global community today, there are critical elements that need to be acted upon to ensure an inclusive and resilient community. Foremost amongst these is the shared determination to strengthen its fledging institutions that are meant to support the realization of a “just, peaceful and stable region” and to strengthen the normative foundations of state-society relations. These include, among others, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR); ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC), ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR) and legislative body like the ASEAN InterParliamentary Assembly. These mechanisms provide significant opportunities for building regional capacities to assist states and societies in the region to resolve disputes, prevent violence, and facilitate the peaceful management of conflicts.

The next most important agenda is to urge regional states to actively engage the participation of non-state actors and other stakeholders in addressing security problems. Non-state actors represent a broad group ranging from private companies, business chambers, to local community, international NGOs, private foundations, as well as think tanks. The variety of the non­state actors (NSAs) indicates a potential pool of different resources and capabilities for security governance. Three particular strengths distinguish NSAs’ contributions from state actors—resources, skills, technologies and knowledge that can fill in the gaps left the by state actors; enhance the relationship between closeness to the people and communities in need and build public trust.

But in order to take these two broad measures forward, all stakeholders should pay attention to some key elements that could determine the outcomes of regional endeavours.

1 ASEAN Political-Security Blueprint 2025 in the ASEAN Vision 2025 (ASEAN. 20.1 5:19).

9

acuns . org

Establish clarity in roles and responsibilities While cognizant of the need to build state capacity in dealing with security challenges, the proliferation of other actors can lead to confusion and/or conflict in roles and responsibilities in security provision, which in turn, result in governance gaps at the operational level. The roles and responsibilities of the state and other actors may also change depending on the nature or scale of the threat. For crises that have immediate and serious transboundary impacts like emerging infectious disease, the role of international organizations like the WHO becomes critical as they coordinate global efforts with states and regional organisations to deal with public health emergencies of international concern. It is therefore crucial to clearly define the working relationships between and among the actors in different security settings to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of security governance.

Encourage ownership and allow national government to take the lead Despite the growing role of other actors in helping build states’ capacity to deal with security challenges, it is also important to be mindful and sensitive to the local and regional context.

More importantly, states must take ownership of the kinds of policies and assistance provided by different stakeholders.

In this regard, the experience of ASEAN in dealing with transboundary security threats is instructive. States engaged at the regional level in cooperative and collaborative efforts in addressing security problems, while being sensitive to the norms of sovereignty and non-interference. They are also mindful that while the need to offer assistance is an integral part of its ASEAN Community vision, there is a limit to the extent that other states or ASEAN can be involved even without consent is granted by the affected state. This means that while regional organisations can be effective mobilisers of resources, their main thrust is to lend support and complement the work of the affected country but not replace them.

Sub-regions in Asia differ in the level of regional institution, with Southeast Asia achieving higher level of institutionalisation than Northeast Asia and South Asia. Overall, the experience in East Asia is that providing assistance without threatening sovereignty has gone a long way in allowing affected states to take ownership while opening spaces for assistance to flow to communities of concern.

Harness bilateral channels, regional mechanisms and other formal and informal networks Apart from clarity in roles and responsibilities, cooperative security frameworks, mechanisms and security architectures that facilitate communication and coordination at different levels hold the key to effective security governance. This web of institutions must be harnessed to the fullest.

Bilateral channels and regional mechanisms are intended to facilitate coordination between national governments as well as non-state actors above the national levels. Bilateral cooperation is a major component of governing transboundary security challenges, particularly for regions where the regional institution

is weak or absent. For example, the strong relationship between the Japanese Self Defense Force (SDF) and the US military laid the solid foundation for the joint operation in response to the Great East Japan earthquake in 2011, known as Operation Tomodachi.

Similar cooperation was seen in the response to Haiyan between the Philippines and the US in 2013.

Regional frameworks facilitate bilateral as well as regional cooperation. In Southeast Asia, the governance of haze problem is being continuously strengthened by regional agreements, initiatives and networks. Some of which include the 2002 ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, the 2003 ASEAN Peatland Management Initiative, and the 2005 ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy. During the major outbreaks in Indonesia in the past, neighboring countries responded with assistance in different forms within the ASEAN frameworks.

To conclude, within the context of the region there still needs more serious efforts to coordinate the mosaic of security architecture and to realize the vision of a “caring, just, democratic”2 and inclusive ASEAN and the wider Asian community. But just as the seeds have been planted and the shoots are starting to grow, more efforts should now be focused on nurturing whatever progress has been made in advancing human security for all. * Mely Caballero-Anthony is Associate Professor and Head of the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Sin­gapore.

Until May 2012, she served as Director of External Relations at the ASEAN Secretariat. She also currently serves in the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters and Security and is a member of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Agenda Council on Conflict Prevention.

Engage Non-State Actors as indispensable partners in inclusive security provision As seen in times of humanitarian emergencies, outbreaks of pandemics and environmental pollution, philanthropic foundations, multinational corporations and INGOs are often sources of funds and other types of assistance. Similarly, local communities and civil society groups always play a crucial role in providing security as they often have better knowledge about local conditions, people’s interests and concerns and cultural sensitivity. Such knowledge enables them to spot the gaps left by formal security arrangements and mechanisms and fill them in according to their own strengths.

The elements outlined above are certainly not exhaustive.

There remain broader agendas and pathways that should be the subject of further dialogue between state authorities, their partners and their own people. To be sure, the East Asian region continues to face many challenges ahead.

These include: • Developments in domestic politics that seem to show a sliding back toward more authoritarian regimes (Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia).

• Intractable problem in Myanmar’ Rakhine state and the plight of the Rohingyas.

• International/regional challenges to the rules-based regimes like the disputed maritime areas in the South and East China Seas.

seeking nominations: acuns board of directors

Nominate or be nominated.

AS OF JULY 2018 four positions are open on the ACUNS Board of Directors. Board members will serve from 2018 – 2021. ACUNS members are invited to nominate qualified individuals, including themselves, for these positions. All nominees should be members of ACUNS. Please send nominations with: • • •

Curriculum vitae Bio (300–500 words) A short supporting statement outlining what the nominee will bring to ACUNS.

TO NO MIN ATE > All nominations will be accepted until March 31, 2018.

Nominations should be sent to bburns@wlu.ca.

Questions? Please email admin@acuns.org or call (1) 226.772.3121

2 ASEAN Political-Security Blueprint

quarterly newsletter Issue 1 > 2018

Publisher: Alistair Edgar, Executive Director, ACUNS

AC U N S S ecretariat

Editors: Brenda Burns, Co-ordinator, ACUNS Gwenith Cross, Program Support, ACUNS

Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3C5

Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) Quarterly Newsletter is published four times a year with the support of the Department of Communications, Public Affairs & Marketing (CPAM) at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Contributing Writers: Richard Ponzio, William Durch, Joris Larik, Mely Caballero-Anthony, Alistair Edgar, Brenda Burns and Gwenith Cross

We welcome and encourage your feedback. Opinions expressed in ACUNS Quarterly Newsletter do not necessarily reflect those of the editor, ACUNS or the host institution.

Imagery: Thinkstock.com

© ACUNS 2018. All rights reserved.

Design: Dawn Wharnsby, CPAM

T > 226.772.3142 F > 226.772.0016

Send address changes and feedback to: Gwenith Cross, Program Support, ACUNS E > gcross@acuns.org T > 226.772.3121

A C U N S q uarterl y newsletter > issue 1 > 2 0 1 8

acuns . org 1 0

2018 membership form individual annual membership o New

o Renewal

1

M E M B E R I N F O R M AT I O N

Prefix: o Dr.

o Mr.

o Ms.

o Mrs.

o Miss

First Name: ___________________________________________ Last Name: ___________________________________________ Mailing Address: o (Home) o (Work) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________________ State/Province: _______________________________________ Postal Code/Zip Code: ___________________________________ Country: _____________________________________________ E-mail (required for e-access): __________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ____________________________________________ o (Home) o (Work) o (Mobile)

o I would like to receive the ACUNS e-update and receive free monthly updates on the latest news, events and activities o I would like to receive information on ACUNS events & activities in Vienna o I would like to receive information on ACUNS events in New York

2 M E M B E R S H I P T Y P E Institutional Memberships also are available at acuns.org ACUNS memberships are based on the January to December calendar year. If you join mid-year, you will receive back issues of Global Governance and the ACUNS quarterly newsletter. If you have any questions regarding joining mid-year, please contact the Secretariat at admin@acuns.org.

Please note that membership fees are in U.S. Funds.

o $450 (Extended 5-year Term) o $75 (Up to $40,000 income)

o $165 (Sponsoring)* o $55 (Retired)

o $100 (Over $40,000 income) o $55 (Student)

*In addition to your own, sponsor a new one-year membership for a person from a developing country.

RETURN PAYMENT TO: ACUNS Secretariat Wilfrid Laurier University 75 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON N2L 3C5 Canada

3 P A Y M E N T O P T I O N S o VISA o MASTERCARD

o Enclosed Check (drawn on a US or Canadian Bank)

Card No: ____ ____ ____ ____ / ____ ____ ____ ____ / ____ ____ ____ ____ / ____ ____ ____ ____ Expiration Date: ____ ____ / ____ ____ Signature:___________________________________________

OR Fax: (1) 226.772.0016

> For more information, please email admin@acuns.org or call (1) 226.772.3121

Email us to find out how to become an institutional member at admin@acuns.org

renew your membership or become a member online at

acuns . org