Report on the Washington Dialogue
2nd Dialogue on Security & Disarmament in the Asia-Pacific, Washington and New York 9-12 February 1999
The dialogue was an initiative of the National Centre for South Asian Studies and the Monash Asia Institute, Australia
1. Origins of the 2nd dialogue
During the 1st dialogue in Melbourne, participants agreed to continue the dialogue process. It was also agreed, that a gathering in Washington and New York should be a priority in order to involve our American colleagues. To ensure that the 2nd dialogue was also more representative of different perspectives on Asian security, it was decided to invite additional participants from Russia, Korea, Singapore, Japan and China. The 2nd dialogue was focussed on the situation in South Asia and how that situation related to broader events in the Asia-Pacific. To ensure a free and frank exchange of views, it was decided that the dialogue should continue to observe Chatham House rules. Individual participants were free to give interviews to the press, and members of the American and international press were invited to attend the meetings as observers. However, no reports of the proceedings were filed. Instead, a communique was issued at the end of discussions in Washington on 11th February, 1999.
2. The concept of a dialogue
Plans for the 1st dialogue emerged in early June 1998 in discussions between the Directors of the National Centre for South Asian Studies and the Monash Asia Institute in Melbourne. In particular, the organisers felt that Australia's response to the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan had been unwise. Instead of suspending all official visits and dialogue with India and Pakistan, it was felt that Australia should have engaged in more dialogue than ever before so as to have some positive influence on the emerging security scenario in South Asia. The cessation of official dialogue suggested that it was important to begin a non-official discourse on a range of security concerns that emerged in the aftermath of the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. The organisers also believed that it was highly appropiate for Monash University to initiate the non-official dialogue- Australian universities have long played an important historical role in developing Australia's relationships with the countries of the Asia-Pacific. The conference organisers wanted to create an exchange of opinions and, moreover, direct this exchange towards a consideration of what steps could now be taken to improve the security of the Asia-Pacific environment, rather than dwell on the long history of events that created the situation in which India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices in May 1998. To achieve this purpose, it was decided that the participants would be asked to attend and speak but not to write papers or make keynote speeches. All too often, papers and speeches result in precious time being spent on giving 'position statements'. Each of the sessions was designed to facilitate an unstructured dialogue between the participants. The chairs of the sessions played an important role in facilitating discussions and ensuring that all voices were heard. To promote a cordial atmosphere of informality, there were no microphones around the table; participants were encouraged not to sit in country-groups; and formal titles were not used. These ground rules were also observed during the 2nd dialogue in Washington DC and the meeting in New York.
3. The participants
For a complete list of the participants in the Washington dialogue please click here . A total of 70 persons participated in the dialogue at Georgetown University, Washington DC. The Melbourne Group was represented by twelve participants brought together by Monash from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Two special features of the Washington dialogue were � the involvement of a large number of Asia-Pacific Scholars, including four participants from the People's Republic of China and � the significant involvement of American scholars and thinkers including Professor Robert Gallucci (Dean of the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service and President Bill Clinton's Special Envoy on Nuclear Disarmament) and Professor David Steinberg (Dean of the Asian Studies Program, Washington University and a specialist on Korean and Burmese affairs). Given the large role played by the USA in the Asia-Pacific, we felt it was especially appropriate to see so many of our American colleagues. Indeed, this was the rationale for having the 2nd dialogue in Washington in the first place.
4. Meeting at the Asia Society in New York
At the end of two days of discussion, a Communique was issued. The Melbourne Group then proceeded to New York in order to report on the deliberations to a meeting of the Asia Society. At that meeting on Friday 12th February, a further fifty participants from the New York area joined in the discussions. Our host for the meeting in New York was the Executive Director of the Asia Society, Marshall Bouton.
5. Financial support to the dialogue in Washington and the meeting in New York
We would like to acknowledge the support of the following to these events:� Monash University and � Georgetown University. As a result of the meeting in New York, the Rockefeller Foundation has come forward with further financial support to the establishment of the South Asian Security Network.
6. The outcome of the 2nd dialogue
At the end of proceedings at Georgetown University, the participants issued a communique which reflected the consensus of the people who had gathered for the two days of discussions. The communque represents one of the important results of our meeting. The other important achievement was the decision to continue the dialogue process in Beijing in early 1999.
7. A brief report on what was discussed during the dialogue
The best guide to the nature of the deliberations in Washington is in the Washington Communique and the conference program summarised below.
Day 1
Session 1: Developments since the August 1998 Melbourne Communique Chair: John McKay
Session 2: South and East Asian Security Concerns Chair: Marika Vicziany
Session 3: The Future of the Korean Peninsula. Chair: Richard Teare
Session 4: Concepts of Minimum Nuclear Deterrence and Non-Prolifereation Chair: Robert Gallucci
Session 5: Continuation and Conclusion of Session 4
Day 2
Session 6: Response of the International Community to Nuclear and Security Issues (Including Economic Sanctions) Chair: Jim Kennan
Session 7: Possible Security Architectures, Regional Relationships and Dispute Resolution Chair: Howard Schaffer
Session 8: The Washington Communique: Conceptualization and Drafting Marika Vicziany, John McKay, Jim Kennan, Samina Yasmeen, Yoshihide Soeya
Session 9: Agreement on the final wording of the Communique and Discussion about the Timing and Venue for the 3rd Security Dialogue
For further information about the Washington dialgoue contact either marika.vicziany@adm.monash.edu.au or john.mckay@adm.monash.edu.au