The Asia-Pacific Security Lexicon (Upated 2nd Edition)

CONFIDENCE- AND SECURITYBUILDINGMEASURES

93 CONFIDENCE- AND SECURITYBUILDING MEASURES While there is widespread agreement that the aim of confidenceand security-building measures (CSBMs) is to reduce uncertainty, misperception, and suspicion, and thus help lessen the possibility of armed conflict, ther e is no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a confidence- and security-building measure. To add to the confusion, the term is also often used inter changeably with confidence-building measur es (CBMs) and other similar expressions. For example, a Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) r eport on the subject said that CSBMs encompass and embrace “the spirit and intent of pr oposals calling for trust-building measures, mutual assurance measures, mutual reassurance measures, community-building measures, and other related confidence-building concepts”.1 Like confidence-building measures, the origins of the term confidence- and security-building measur es lie in Cold War Europe. Confidence-building measures was first used during the negotiations which culminated in the publication of the Helsinki Final Act (1975). In 1983, the Confer ence on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) states met in Madrid as a followup to the Helsinki Pr ocess to discuss convening a Confer ence on Disarmament in Eur ope (CDE). The Madrid meeting’s “Concluding Document” first used the termconfidence- and security01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 93 94 building measures. According to Victor-Yves Ghebali, the genesis of the term lies in a Yugoslav proposal put forward during informal discussions on military issues. 2 The proposal suggested that “security-building measures” could be added (as a separate concept) alongside “confidence-building measures.” However, this dichotomy was unacceptable to the W est, and it was finally decided to use the consolidated term confidence- and security-building measures to describe the new measur es set out in the Madrid Process. These measures were intended to extend the CBMs agr eed upon as part of the Helsinki Pr ocess. CSBMs, in contrast with Helsinki’s CBMs, were not independent of each other but wer e supposed to be a series of mutually complementary measur es.3 According to Ralph Cossa, definitions of CSBMs vary , “ranging from the very narr ow (looking almost exclusively at military measures) to much broader interpretations encompassing almost anything that builds confidence”. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been described as a “classic” CSBM.4 The CSCAP Working Group on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures put forwar d its pr eferred definition of CSBMs as including “both formal and informal measur es, whether unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, that addr ess, prevent, or r esolve uncertainties among states, including both military and political elements.”5 A U.S. CSCAP paper on CSBMs used almost exactly the same language, adding that CSBMs included “both military and political elements relevant for the larger and longer-term task of creating a Security Community”. The U.S. r eport explicitly distinguished CSBMs from other relationships that can generate confidence and security among nations, saying “alliances and security guarantees … are not properly defined as CSBMs.”6 Most accounts stress a number of common elements which are needed if CSBMs are to work successfully in the Asia-Pacific region. First, CSBMs require participants who want to cooperate. Put simply, there must be a shar ed belief among r egional actors that the advantages of taking part in confidence- and securitybuilding measures outweigh any risks or disadvantages. CSBMs must be seen as a “win-win” option for all participants. Second, CSBMs are most ef fective where they ar e guided by r egional norms. Concepts cannot be simply “parachuted” in fr om other parts of the world. Particular CSBMs must be consistent with the geopolitical environment and strategic culture of a region. Given the tremendous diversity of the Asia-Pacific, this has led some scholars to suggest that a sub-regional approach to CSBMs might CONFIDENCE- AND SECURITY-BUILDING MEASURES 01 A_Pac Security Lexicon 9/24/07, 9:03 AM 94 95 be the most fr uitful. Third, military CSBMs in particular should have realistic, pragmatic, and clearly-defined objectives on which there is common agr eement. They should not be too ambitious. Most analysts agr ee that gradual, incr emental, and informal approaches seem to pr ovide for the best chance of building consensus.7 Notes 1 Ralph A. Cossa, “Asia Pacific Confidence and Security Building Measur es: A CSCAP Working Group Report”, Paper pr esented...