It goes without saying that conflicts are costly. And not only in terms of economic and monetary losses. As has been aptly put by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his 2001 report on the Prevention of Armed Conflict, "The human costs of war include not only the visible and immediate � death, injury, destruction, displacement � but also the distant and indirect repercussion for families, communities, local and national institutions and economies, and neighbouring countries."

The 1997 report by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict estimated that the international community spent about US$200 billion on the seven major interventions of the 1990s - Bosnia & Herzegovina, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, the Persian Gulf, Cambodia and El Salvador. These figures do not include the efforts by states, international organisations and NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance to the afflicted populations.

Conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding are not new concepts. In 1899, the International Peace Conference was held in The Hague to elaborate instruments for settling crises peacefully, preventing wars and codifying rules of warfare. Even before this, the Treaty of Westphalia, concluded in 1648, set out the concept of state sovereignty and established some basic principles governing inter-state relations in an attempt to prevent the Thirty Years War from ever re-occurring. The solution to conflict was seen to lie with the codification, in international agreements and treaties, of rights and obligations of states, principles governing inter-state relations, and methods for dispute resolution.

This reliance on and respect for the rule of law, as the very first safeguard against conflict, has been enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The UN itself was established after World War 2 with the mission "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". This emphasis on the sanctity of international law and treaties has become even more relevant in today's uncertain international environment. Over the past decade, there have been many challenges to the traditional concept of state sovereignty. We have seen a change in intra and inter-state relations as nations struggle to deal with issues such as globalisation, humanitarian intervention, and various transnational issues. Amidst this flux, the respect for international law and agreements remains as a constant and accepted guiding principle in governing international relations.

It is useful for seminars like this to exchange ideas and experiences in anticipating and mediating conflicts. I would like to submit four challenges which I hope this seminar could address.

First, the responsibility for preventive action lies with a range of actors, namely national governments, civil society, the UN and other international and regional organisations. The Charter provides the UN with a strong mandate for preventing armed conflict. The UN itself is well placed to act as a focal point for marshalling international political support and resources to manage a crisis before it breaks out into conflict. At the same time, regional organisations have a role to play. However, how are these identified roles translated into specific preventive action? In the event of a crisis, who should take the responsibility to initiate preventive action? How should this responsibility be distributed amongst the various actors involved?

Second, timely action to prevent violent conflict is difficult as it is often hard to identify situations that are appropriate for preventive action. There is a gestation period between the time when potential causes of conflict are identified, and the time when conflict actually breaks out. It is this gestation period that provides an important window of opportunity for preventive action. However, there remains a gap in our understanding of this transition from potential crisis to actual conflict. The nature and timing of trigger mechanisms, which spark violent conflict are complex, under-studied and difficult to predict without a deep understanding of local dynamics. So how does one design an effective preventive strategy that addresses the trigger points for conflict?

Third, it is difficult to mobilise resources for preventive action in the absence of actual violence. Funding decisions are still largely conducted in a reactive fashion. In our world of limited resources and competing priorities, there is a strong sense of the need to "get value for money" or to justify to domestic populations that funds had to be spent. However, in the absence of actual violence, the impact of conflict is hard to assess. There remains considerable work to be done in developing some sort of accountability system for investments in conflict prevention.

Fourth, I hope this seminar can also address the issue of the legitimacy of conflict prevention efforts and its impact on traditional concerns of state sovereignty. When does collective interest in regional peace and stability become an intrusion into the internal affairs of the state? At the same time, the success of preventive efforts requires the cooperation of the parties affected, be they states or segments of the population. This is the most difficult and sensitive aspect of prevention efforts that has to be addressed.

I have no ready answer to the four issues that I have just raised. However, as this is a seminar that focuses on sharing of experiences with the aim of distilling some possible answers, I will now like to share with you Singapore's perspective on our region's efforts to prevent and manage conflict.

Over thirty years ago, the prospects for Southeast Asia looked dim. There was war and conflict within and between some member states and economic prospects of the region were gloomy. Because of this, ASEAN was established in 1967 for the purpose of "accelerating economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership", and for promoting "regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the UN Charter". (I am quoting from the ASEAN Declaration)

It is noteworthy that since the creation of ASEAN, no Southeast Asian country has gone to war with another. Much of the region's success in maintaining peace and stability can be attributed to the "ASEAN way" of cooperation and consensus building. It is also due to member states' adherence to the principles of mutual respect, non-interference and respect for the rule of law, as enshrined in the Bangkok Declaration and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC).

While our common membership in ASEAN has been a good starting point for peace in the region, we should not be complacent and take this peace for granted. Given that the trigger points for conflict are complex and difficult to predict, there is a need to aspire beyond attaining "zero war" to attaining "zero prospect of war". This requires the building of a "culture of conflict prevention". As such, in 1994, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established with the primary purpose of sustaining and enhancing regional stability.

The ARF has evolved into a useful forum which facilitates discussion of sensitive regional issues between member states. As comfort levels have risen, discussions have gradually moved from traditional security issues to non-traditional and other transnational issues, such as terrorism. In the light of Sept 11, the ARF has proven itself to be a very useful vehicle for confidence building and effective cooperation in global counter-terrorism efforts. With the broad convergence and quick response among member countries in tackling terrorism, the ARF has demonstrated its ability to meet the challenge of preventive diplomacy. The ARF is now seeking a new way forward - striking a balance between the traditional sensitivities among ARF members, while capitalising on the newfound momentum for cooperation in the ARF.

In our work of building regional peace, Southeast Asia has enjoyed the support of the UN and its agencies. For many years, ASEAN and the UN worked closely in search of peaceful settlement to conflict and to the building of peace in Cambodia. These collaborative efforts culminated in the establishment of the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia, which till today, stands as a hallmark of cooperation between regional states and the UN in preventive diplomacy and peacebuilding. Another successful example of cooperation between the UN and the region has been the case of East Timor. Since 1982, the ASEAN countries supported the negotiations that Indonesia and Portugal conducted under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General. More recently, at Indonesia's request, ASEAN members also agreed to have prominent ASEAN participation in the international force that the UN was organising for East Timor. ASEAN members have also provided material support to the UN Transitional Authority for East Timor and its successor mission. For example, Filipinos, Thais, Malaysians and Singaporeans currently stand amongst the UN peacekeepers stationed in East Timor.

Just as there is a range of conflict situations, there should be a range of mechanisms to prevent and manage conflict. We in Southeast Asia have sought to develop our options in preventing and managing conflict through regional mechanisms, as well as through close cooperation with the UN and its agencies. It is our hope that the previous experiences of cooperation between ASEAN and the UN will help to further dialogue between the two organisations in the field of conflict prevention and management. This seminar is a timely opportunity to explore the challenges in creating and implementing prevention strategies, and the roles which international and regional organisations can play. I wish all participants a fruitful and constructive discussion in their efforts to find answers to these and other key questions.

. . . . .