/>

Building Peace in Southeast Asia’s Conflict Areas

Source: Getty
Article
Summary
To truly solve long-running conflicts in Southeast Asia, ceasefires must yield peace dividends that include better economic opportunities.
Related Topics
Related Media and Tools
 

The recent framework agreement between the government of the Philippines and the country’s largest Islamist rebel group hopefully ended decades of separatist violence in Mindanao. With President Benigno S. Aquino III and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) agreeing to the deal, this could be the beginning of the much-anticipated peace, stability, and economic development needed in this Muslim-dominated region in the south.

The agreement also rekindled optimism that other long-running conflicts in Southeast Asia—such as in Myanmar’s ethnic states, Thailand’s southern provinces, and Indonesia’s eastern province of Papua—can come to an end. But even if peace were to break out in Southeast Asia, enormous challenges will remain to eliminate the economic marginalization and social injustices that provoked these conflicts in the first place.

Southeast Asia’s remarkable economic performance over the last three decades has masked long-standing internal conflicts in several countries in the region. But progress has been made.

It took the fall of Suharto for Timor-Leste to gain independence from Indonesia in 1999. And it took a catastrophic tsunami for the separatist Free Aceh Movement, known as GAM, and the Indonesian government to reach a political solution, returning the region to normalcy as an integral part of Indonesia in 2005.

In Myanmar, recent political and economic reforms have been accompanied by ceasefire agreements in ten of the eleven ethnic states, and there are talks ongoing to negotiate a ceasefire in the eleventh, Kachin State. And now, in the past few weeks, the framework agreement in Mindanao has hopefully brought another internal conflict in Southeast Asia to a close.

To be sure, peace in these conflict areas remains fragile. Wherever ceasefire agreements are introduced, it is usually a difficult task to transform them into longer-lasting peace agreements and ultimately into permanent political arrangements that help reconnect the regions to the country’s economic and political mainstream.

And unless the end of violence brings a sustained peace dividend in new economic opportunities and access to justice, these regions could just as easily slip back into fighting. President Aquino’s framework agreement with the MILF is a very welcome first step in the region. Now, together, both sides have the far more difficult task of building the peace.

Breaking the vicious cycle of violence, poverty, and injustice is incredibly complex. The emphasis must lie in building institutions that enjoy the confidence of citizens and provide security, economic opportunities, and access to justice. This can be challenging under any circumstances, but is especially hard to achieve in regions affected by conflict.

Initially, it requires working with local leaders to provide security, make decisionmaking more transparent, repeal discriminatory laws, and allocate public resources consistent with need and absorptive capacity. But subsequently, the emphasis needs to shift to increasing access to justice and creating economic opportunities.

Many of these conflict areas in Southeast Asia were poor before fighting broke out and incessant combat has only exacerbated their plight relative to the rest of the region. For example, Mindanao had a poverty rate of 46 percent in 2009, one of the highest in the Philippines and almost twice the national average.

In Myanmar, the ethnic states with the most fighting are also the poorest—in 2010, Chin, Rakhine, and Shan had the highest poverty rates in the country (73 percent, 44 percent, and 33 percent respectively). Similarly, Thailand’s southern provinces of Yala, Narathiwat, and Pattani have per capita incomes that are only 40–50 percent of the national average.

One way economic opportunities can be increased is by improving infrastructure, especially for transport and power generation and distribution. Not only does this lead to immediate job creation in the construction and energy industries, but better transport allows people to move to jobs (rather than the other way around) and the greater availability of energy often removes a binding constraint to local development.

Virtually all the post-conflict regions in Southeast Asia tend to be disconnected from the rest of the economy and suffer from energy shortages. Restoring connectivity through better infrastructure reconnects these local economies with the mainstream.

Another important way to increase economic opportunities is to simplify regulations and reduce start-up costs for new businesses. The government also needs to encourage private investment by finding ways to mitigate security risks and increase access to finance. Such temporary but special support for private investors is essential because ultimately the private sector needs to drive growth and job creation in post-conflict situations. This creates the economic foundations for a permanent peace.

Finally, the delivery of health and education services is critical in post-conflict societies. Such societies tend to suffer from high infant mortality and illiteracy and displaced populations have little or no access to public services.

With the social service infrastructure in conflict areas—clinics, schools, and community centers—typically destroyed and social service personnel such as teachers and health workers either killed or pushed out of the area, rebuilding is a major challenge. This long-term task requires adequate financial resources and a clear strategy to restore delivery centers, buy equipment, and recruit suitably skilled personnel.

But even with these steps it will inevitably take time to create economic opportunities and generate employment. Governments, therefore, need to consider interim measures that sustain post-conflict economies while longer-term measures take effect.

One proven way is to introduce labor intensive social safety net programs that help build or repair high-priority infrastructure at the local level—rural roads, drainage, or dams for example. Such programs may help inject demand into the local economy and provide gainful—albeit temporary—employment (especially to idle young men), while at the same time restore local infrastructure that will ultimately help the growth process.

While it may be premature to conclude that peace is breaking out in Southeast Asia, the recent announcement of the Mindanao framework agreement and the ceasefire agreements in Myanmar’s ethnic states give grounds for cautious optimism. Transforming these agreements into long-lasting peace arrangements and ultimately into political settlements will take time.

To build a more conducive environment for productive negotiations, ceasefires must yield peace dividends that include better economic opportunities. Governments, therefore, must invest in infrastructure, simplify regulations, and develop social safety nets to give peace a chance.

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments (3)

 
 
  • aung-thwin
    The peace efforts with insurgencies (ethnic, ideological, economic, and historical) in Myanmar have been going on since 1948, reaching fruition in piece-meal fashion, so that what you see today is not "recent" and didn't suddenly happen. Such conclusions, unfortunately, are the result of ignoring history.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Anonymous
    Although you bring up many substantive prescriptions to conflict resolution in Southeast Asia, I feel that some of the local dimensions of these conflicts are whitewashed. One article on Asia Times Online pointed to the complexity of the dimensions behind the GRP-MILF peace framework: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NK06Ae02.html.   While your cogent editorial points out salient points to bring lasting peace, it cannot resolve the wealth of longstanding local dimensions and discourses that could undercut the peace process in Myanmar's periphery, southern Thailand, Mindanao and/or Irian Jaya. I look forward to your future articles delving into the specific dynamics of these conflicts.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • hat
    i believe that the conflict in southeast asia is a problem and is very hard to stop the violence and cruelty that has taken place for the past century
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/11/12/building-peace-in-southeast-asia-s-conflict-areas/ehsh

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。