[Northeast Asian Maritime Order and Regional Security Cooperation: Looking for “Cooperation Spirals”]

Q1. What do you think of confidence-building measures for maritime cooperation in Northeast Asia?

Many navies and coast guards in the region are getting bigger, but the seas stay the same size. The challenge for policymakers is to ease tensions and ensure that interactions between navies and coast guards are as peaceful as possible.
Recently there has been progress between navy-to-navy interactions, and also between air forces. The situation can be a bit more difficult with coast guards: they’re not used to working internationally, and the cultures and procedures are different. This is one area that we could address.
In terms of countries in our region, even where there are political tension or territorial disputes—for example, between Korea and Japan, or between Japan and Russia—we don’t have collisions happening at sea.


Q2. In maritime cooperation, in connection to preventive diplomacy, can you name a region or two where maritime cooperation is more successful? What can we learn from these more successful regions?

One commentator in our session pointed to the Indian Ocean as a positive model, where India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar have taken their disputes in recent years to international courts and they’ve abided by the decisions of those courts—in some cases ending disputes that have existed for decades.
The size disparity between India and Bangladesh is quite great, and in some respects its comparable to the difference between China and some of its maritime neighbors. India has agreed to be the benevolent “big brother” in the Indian Ocean and has accepted the judgment of the courts, even though it may lose some of its resource claims. This may be a good example for East Asia, where even though we have had a good record of professional encounters, we haven’t had the same confidence in legal models.
Maritime confidence building measures are important because they reduce the chances of conflict happening by accident. That’s useful, but needs to be seen in context. In other issues in the region, conflict is accidental, but rather intentional though at a lower level of risk. That’s much more difficult for policymakers to address, in that it’s also about the strategy that lies behind it.


Q3. What do you think of “cooperation spirals”? Can we make them happen in Northeast Asia? How?

Cooperation is difficult to predict. Sometimes the triggers can be quite small if you can find a project to work on together. Even having the right personalities, who can build a relationship, can produce an effect over time that can be institutionalized.
In order for the cooperation to spiral upwards rather than downwards, it needs to have political will. In many cases we have militaries and coast guards on both sides that understand the risks and are willing to conclude a professional code of conduct, but unfortunately the obstacle is at the political level.


[On Peace]

Q1. How can multilateral talks such as the Jeju Forum contribute to peace promotion?

Korea has a lot to contribute: because of the security situation between North and South, Koreans are used to living with a high level of tension. That allows them to provide lessons to other countries that are less used to managing those tensions. Korea can be a model for the rest of the world, in that way, even though Korea wants to end the conflict on the peninsula.
Jeju is also a unique island for Korea, in that it faces the East China Sea. It’s the southernmost territory. This provides a maritime perspective which is not just focused on the dangers to the north. The challenge for Korea is to see the wider region and the wider world as an area where it can contribute, instead of only focusing on the DMZ and the political problems across the Korean Peninsula.
The Jeju Forum plays two roles: it can bring expertise into Korea from the outside, but it’s also a forum that can demonstrate Korea’s unique advantages and efforts to contain and address the root causes of conflict, and apply those on a broader global or regional model.


Q2. What role might think tanks play in to peace promotion?

Think tank researchers have an obvious advantage compared to officials in that we can say what we think. We have a freedom that is very significant. I previously served as a government official, so I understand the constraints. Think tanks can serve as a bridge between policy and the wider public debate.
Think tanks are also able to be creative and recommend new solutions. Governments tend to be very linear in their approach. Sometimes there’s a real problem of “group think.” Think tanks can help translate a genuine outside thought in a way that is accessible for policymakers. Universities and academics produce long essays, but sometimes that knowledge is inaccessible to policymakers. Think tanks try to make complex problems simple and easy to understand.


* Dr. Euan GRAHAM is the director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

Dr. Euan GRAHAM describes how maritime confidence building measures in Northeast Asia have achieved some progress, and makes recommendations for policymakers going forward. Recently there has been progress between navy-to-navy interactions. The situation can be a bit more difficult with coast guards, which are not used to working internationally. Fortunately, he says, even where there are political tension or territorial disputes—for example, between Korea and Japan, or between Japan and Russia—there are not collisions at sea.
One model for East Asian countries in managing maritime tensions might be the littoral states of the Indian Ocean, particularly India’s example of accepting international arbitration on territorial disputes. The most important factor, Dr. GRAHAM estimates, is the political will of leadership. In many cases militaries and coast guards on both sides understand the risks and are willing to conclude a professional code of conduct, but the obstacle is at the political level.
Korea and the Jeju Forum can play a special role in maritime confidence building. Dr. GRAHAM says that Korea’s experience of dealing with a high level of tension also allows them to provide lessons to other countries that are less used to managing those tensions. The Jeju Forum plays two roles: it can bring expertise into Korea from the outside, but it’s also a forum that can demonstrate Korea’s unique advantages in handling conflict as well. This fits the major contributions that think tanks can make, which is to offer creative solutions to governments.

* Interviewed on May 26, 2016 (Jeju Forum 2016)
Posted on October 31, 2016