At the Bangkok meeting, ARF members did once again agree to explore a possible preventive diplomacy role for the ARF in the future. This could include an expanded role by an Experts/Eminent Persons Group or by the ARF Chair in trying to mediate intra- as well as inter-state crises.5 But again, great progress should not be anticipated, given the Chairman's Statement's caveat that preventive diplomacy efforts, like ARF activities in general, should only proceed "at a pace comfortable to all ARF participants and on the basis of consensus, with ASEAN playing its role as driving force in the process."6 In addition, preventive diplomacy as classically defined (and especially as envisioned by the ARF) requires the consent of all the parties involved.
However, it is possible that ARF members could introduce this topic into their working group (Inter-Sessional Support Group or ISG) sessions or hold unofficial discussions on this topic. For example, the Russian Foreign Ministry, in cooperation with the non-governmental ASEAN-ISIS group of Southeast Asia security-oriented think tanks, has been developing a "Declaration of Principles Guiding Cooperation in the Asia Pacific." The drafting of this so-called "Pacific Concord" is being undertaken as an ARF unofficial track two effort, which brings together government officials (in their private capacities) with regional scholars and security analysts. The results are non-binding but normally receive serious consideration by the ARF or its ISGs.7 The latest (August 2000) draft identifies as one of its basic principles, "protection and promotion of the dignity and welfare of the human person in every sphere" and also addresses "respect for fundamental human rights." However, there are also references to "adherence to the principle of non-interference and non-intervention in the internal affairs of each other" and respect for sovereignty, and to the PRC-generated Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence which also heavily stress non-interference. Once this draft is finalized, it would be a logical next step to try to determine how the non-interference and protection of human fights principles can most easily coexist peacefully.
CSCAP
Humanitarian intervention has also been on the agenda of other non-governmental track two organizations. The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP), which links security-oriented think tanks and whose products are regularly fed into ARF deliberations, held a meeting on non-intervention in December 1999, under the auspices of its Comprehensive and Cooperative Security Working Group.8 Discussions focused on national perspectives of non-interference and how it is and should be applied in the Asia Pacific context. The meeting underscored the divergence of views existing among CSCAP member committees, but offered no solutions. It did at least initiate debate on this sensitive issue, although there has been no follow-up to date.9
CSCAP has also helped the ARF move forward in defining its future preventive diplomacy role. The CSCAP Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBM) Working Group, in cooperation with the US Institute of Peace, has held two Preventive Diplomacy Workshops and has developed a "Working Definition and Statement of Principles of Preventive Diplomacy which has since been tabled at the ARF ISG on Confidence Building Measures and recognized as a foundation upon which to build toward a greater ARF role in preventive diplomacy.10 This Working Group also intends to hold discussions on finding a middle ground between non-interference and humanitarian intervention.
SNEAS
This topic was also discussed constructively during a Symposium on Northeast Asia Security (SNEAS) in Beijing in March, 2000 under the auspices of the US Information Service. The focus of the meeting was non-traditional security concerns. Participants had a constructive debate on non-interference versus humanitarian intervention, the key points of which are loosely summarizedhere:
