Re-establishing an Indonesia-Thailand alliance for ASEAN

Awidya Santikajaya, Jakarta | Fri, 09/16/2011 8:04 PM A | A | A |- Klipping the Jakarta Post

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has begun an introductory tour to three Southeast Asian countries: Brunei, Indonesia and Cambodia. Among her visits to other countries, her trip to Cambodia could become the most deeply watched.

Observers are curious to see whether she is able to fix her country’s ties with Cambodia, especially with regard to the Preah Vihear border dispute.

Beside this issue, a more important issue to be monitored from her travels is how Yingluck actually translates her democratic achievement to reviving Thailand’s role in ASEAN.

Why did I say “reviving”? Thailand was once more than a prominent member of ASEAN. It played a pivotal role in initiating, facilitating and establishing ASEAN in 1967. Responding to criticism over ASEAN’s effectiveness in the late 1990s, then Thai foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan entertained the idea of “constructive engagement” under which Southeast Asian leaders were persuaded to discuss domestic issues in the regional forum.

Unfortunately, a series of political crises has deteriorated Thai diplomacy. Thailand is still a leading actor in ASEAN, but its dominant role has gradually declined.

Thailand’s commitment to ASEAN is often disturbed by its domestic vulnerability as well as the nationalistic stance of certain groups inside the country. For instance, Thailand had to reschedule and relocate the ASEAN Summit in 2010 due to serious security concerns.

Furthermore, in response to the Thai-Cambodian dispute over the area around Preah Vihear temple, former Thai prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva repeatedly refused ASEAN involvement in mediating the conflict.

Abhisit rejected Indonesia’s offer to provide unarmed military observers in the disputed area and insisted that the conflict should be managed by bilateral channels instead of through ASEAN.

While Thailand’s role in ASEAN declines, Indonesia has been pursuing a more ASEAN-oriented foreign policy. ASEAN’s evolution from a “talk-shop” organization to a more formal institution has been strongly influenced by democratization in Indonesia.

Indonesia actively initiated and promoted the ASEAN Community, ASEAN Charter and ASEAN’s Inter-governmental Commission for Human Rights (AICHR). Time magazine once called Indonesia Southeast Asia’s political role model.

Thailand has gained momentum to come back to a diplomatic stage when it recently elected Yingluck as prime minister. Enjoying a landslide election victory, she is the most domestically-legitimate prime minister, compared to her four predecessors.

Legitimacy at home could become a powerful source for exercising foreign policy. Thailand has never had the best chance to normalize its position in ASEAN before.

It is really time to re-embrace regional supremacy, which Thai-land has initiated. In this sense, Thailand and Indonesia could become closer partners to strengthen ASEAN.

To Yingluck, reviving the Thai position in ASEAN is crucial for two reasons. First, it could be useful in tackling accusations from her political opponents who continuously question her little experience in public office.

Second, her proactive involvement in ASEAN could free her from being associated with her brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Why? It was Thaksin who actually “withdrew” Thailand from ASEAN. Following the Tak Bai incident in which about 85 people were killed in Narathiwat province, Thaksin threatened to walk out at the 2004 ASEAN Summit in Vientiane because he did not want other ASEAN countries to raise Thailand’s domestic problem.

At the same time, Indonesia also needs “a partner” in ASEAN. For years, some of Indonesia’s ideas for strengthening ASEAN have not been entirely and easily agreed on by other members.

In 2003, for example, Indonesia suggested establishing an ASEAN peacekeeping force, which was rejected by all ASEAN countries except the Philippines.

Indonesia has been frequently alone in its efforts to modify “the ASEAN Way”. It often has found it difficult to ease the sacred non-interference principle as well as to establish a democratic order in the region.

Partnership between Indonesia and Thailand in ASEAN is crucial. Both are two of the biggest economies and most advanced democracies in Southeast Asia. The two represent different geographical and to some extents geopolitical landscapes in the region.

More importantly, both countries have historically pursued independent, neutral and active foreign policies. Since the colonial period, Thailand has skillfully managed a balance of powers in the region. While it has a treaty alliance with the United States, Thailand might be China’s most friendly Southeast Asian friend.

On the other hand, Indonesia’ foreign policy doctrine is well known as bebas aktif (free and active), which was reflected by its central role in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). This independent foreign policy stance is a key to preserving ASEAN’s centrality, which has been greatly rivaled by non-ASEAN political gravitations. Given the prominence of Indonesia and Thailand, it is not too overstated to say that behavior of both countries towards ASEAN will greatly influence the future of ASEAN.

Both President Yudhoyono and prime minister Yingluck face tough domestic obstacles during their tenure. Yudhoyono has to deal with widespread corruption and a fragile political coalition. Yingluck, at the same time, should publicly prove that she is not a puppet of anyone and also should maintain civilian supremacy over the powerful armed forces, a difficult task for any Thai leader.

Despite the many domestic problems, Yudhoyono and Yingluck have to work together more closely and more actively for ASEAN. As a group of small and medium-sized nations, ASEAN is vulnerable, especially when realpolitik dominates foreign policy. In a region where most nations are undemocratic and semi-democratic, realist-oriented foreign policy is logically more favorable. For this reason, for the sake of ASEAN’s future, two countries with historically strong commitments to multilateralism should be in the same boat.

The writer is a Jakarta-based political analyst and a graduate of the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Washington, DC.