Tuesday, January 24, 2012

ASEAN and SCO: Same traditions and missions

Vitaly Vorobyev, Moscow | Wed, 01/25/2012 10:42 AM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, widely known as ASEAN, will celebrate its 45th anniversary in August 2012.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) marked its 10th anniversary in 2011. Both organizations lie at the vast Euro-Asian terrain. The 10 ASEAN member states constitute a southern part of this territory, while the six SCO member states (China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) cover its heartland — the northern and eastern parts.

The most crucial world shipping lanes between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans pass through the ASEAN area to the Atlantic Ocean and Europe. At the same time the SCO area may be called as a land transport corridor connecting the Pacific Basin with Europe and the Atlantic coast.

Despite an “age difference” both unions have already established a chain of dialogue partners and observers among which are the largest and the most powerful states of the modern world.

It is not only the location that naturally brings SCO and ASEAN closer to each other. Generally, they have much in common, including the spirit and similar basic principles.

Neither of the organizations is a military and political block with instruments of compulsion.

Regardless of size and power, all members of both ASEAN and SCO are equal and follow the same consensus principle while adopting the most important decisions. Both multifaceted organizations, being socially oriented, work hard with a view to adequately matching the priorities of domestic development with the necessity to respond continuously to the volatile flow of external challenges and threats.

Financial and economic globalization has embraced almost the entire world. Local crises resonate in all directions and it has become impossible to mitigate them on a national level only. International terrorism fuelled by drug trafficking and separatism, organized crime and illegal migration, kidnapping and human trafficking have achieved a global dimension. Efforts by individual states are obviously insufficient to oppose them.

Both megatrends can only be efficiently reversed through a wide international consensus for risk evaluation and decision-making. The course of events brings new possibilities for international players to unite their efforts if they view problems more or less the same and/or have similar interests, though not in each and every respect.

In this context, it is urgently needed to intensify the implementation of framework agreements on SCO-ASEAN cooperation achieved a few years ago. There is not even a visible obstacle for that. It is time to establish working contacts between them not on occasion but on a regular and institutional basis. Progress in this direction will add substance to the creation of regional architecture on security and multilateral cooperation in Asia-Pacific (AP).

Non-block approaches, equality, transparency, collective principles, non-confrontation and supremacy of universal rules of international law are the pillars of such an architecture. Creating global indivisible security based on mutual understanding, respect and cooperation is largely a reflection of fundamental ideas of philosophy initially inherent to ASEAN and SCO. If the two organizations with observer status in the UN General Assembly come closer, it would not only strengthen their positive international image but also make their shared ideas even more relevant globally.

Cooperation between SCO and ASEAN can develop actively in many, if not all domains of their work. To this end, it is important to organize information exchanges between the Secretariats in Beijing
and Jakarta.

The establishment of contacts between two major working bodies — the Council of National Coordinators of SCO and the ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting — appears quite promising.

Both organizations have either specific programs or specialized structures aimed at combating terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and trans-border crime. For example, the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure headquartered in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, a permanent body in the SCO framework. SCO has gathered useful practices in countering cyber crime.

Large-scale tasks to create by 2015 involve three communities — namely, political-security, economic and socio-cultural — which are being tackled by ASEAN would undoubtedly be of interest to SCO, as would be the ASEAN Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity approved in 2010 and aimed at developing transport, information and communication infrastructure of the association. ASEAN could take interest in some practical projects that are being implemented by SCO, including those in cooperation with ESCAP.

The fact that ASEAN and SCO carry out their activities without infringing on the diversity of cultures, religions and values of the peoples living in their member states serves as the common ground for joint efforts. Mutual exchange of relevant experience would help make SCO and ASEAN even more attractive.

The agendas of SCO and the ASEAN Regional Forums have much in common. Both structures will only benefit if the dialogue is established and SCO joins the Forum’s activities as soon as possible.

Over the years, ASEAN has gone through a number of difficult transformation periods, including the enlargement of its original membership. Today, keenly and timely adapting to the world changes, ASEAN is leading the integration processes in Asia-Pacific. Many characteristics and qualities of ASEAN can serve as a worthy and useful example for the SCO, which enters the phase of intensified development in the new decade.

Both organizations can complement each other without prejudice to their independence, self-sufficiency, and specificity. Formally, it can be done on a networking basis. Why not, for example, consider ASEAN becoming an observer at SCO and SCO receiving the ASEAN Dialogue Partner status? What prevents SCO and ASEAN from thinking about SCO’s joining the Bali Treaty? Apparently, there are no fundamental or procedural obstacles to that. Not only ASEAN and SCO, but also the whole cause of designing and creating the security and stability architecture in the Asia-Pacific will benefit from this.

The writer was ambassador of the special envoy of the president of Russia for the SCO Affairs during 2000-2006.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Managing differences and competing interests

Marty M. Natalegawa, Kuala Lumpur | Fri, 01/20/2012 10:21 AM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

I was privileged to witness the first time Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announced the “Global Movement of Moderates” at the 65th session of the UN General Assembly in New York in 2010 and then again, soon after that, at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit in Brussels.

As an advocate of peace among and within nations, Indonesia strongly welcomes this initiative. It strengthens and vindicates our own efforts to give voice to the moderates in our own society – and in all societies.

As one of the most diverse nations in the world, Indonesia is home to more than 300 ethnic groups. It is home to the world’s largest Muslim population; and it is home to all of humankind’s other great religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and several denominations of Christianity.

Indonesia proudly bears the civilizational influences of the Middle East, the Sub-Continent, the rest of East Asia as well as the Western world. A broad spectrum of political persuasions is also at work in our society. Indeed, Indonesia is diverse in all aspects.

And yet, we have succeeded in nurturing our national unity and we have made a successful transition from authoritarianism to a fully democratic system. Throughout that transition, we did not regard our diversity as a problem to be managed; instead, we cherished it.

It is our asset, part of our national character, and we therefore celebrate it. We build upon it. Admittedly, however, our journey has not always been so smooth sailing.

At times, it was like a roller-coaster ride. We had to cope with separatist threats, ethnic tensions and religious conflicts. In fact, in the turbulent times following the 1998 crisis, some observers went so far as to predict the failure of Indonesia as a unified country, expecting something akin to the “balkanization” of Indonesia.

But the overwhelming majority of our people remained committed to the unity of Indonesia. And instead of falling apart, we adopted a new approach; we reformed our governance and we overcame the challenges.

Thus, we have acquired a second major asset, which is our experience in democratic transition and social reform — lessons-learned that may be of relevance to others.

That transition, too, has not been an easy process. It demanded resilience, perseverance and commitment from all Indonesians.

From that experience of political transition in the midst of diversity, others may derive insights that are useful in their own efforts toward political development; and develop for themselves practical ideas on how to manage, and indeed, embrace diversity.

That’s why we established the Bali Democracy Forum, the only intergovernmental forum in Asia for the exchange of experiences and best practices in political development. We are confident that through this forum, we can learn from one another’s experiences on our respective challenges and opportunities in addressing diversity as part of overall political development.

Let me now take this opportunity to share with you two basic conclusions that may be drawn from the Indonesian experience.

First, democracy is an effective response to the competing interests and agendas within society. This is largely the case, whether that society is relatively homogenous or vastly diversified, as in Indonesia.

We embraced democracy. We launched our transition to a democratic system. We carried out far-reaching reforms. All voices now gained a hearing and all interests were now taken into consideration in a genuine search for common ground.

We developed a system in which all stakeholders could participate: not only through free and fair elections, not only through dialogue between accountable representatives and their constituents but also through various avenues of feedback which were wide open — including a free press and various forums through which petitions and grievances could be expressed and heard.

Thus, people now feel empowered. They have a sense of ownership toward the actions of the state and they feel they are making a contribution to day-to-day governance.

That’s how democracy took deep root in our country: it was supported and nourished by the core values of Islam and other faiths in Indonesia; by our cultures and traditions; by our own social standards.

That’s how we sent a message to the world that Islam, democracy and modernization can flourish together. And that democracy pays political, social and economic dividends.

Within 13 years, we emerged as a vibrant economic power with regional and global outreach and we are more stable, politically and socially, than we have ever been.

I can reaffirm that Indonesia’s diversity is not a problem to be managed, but an asset that we celebrate and build upon. The world is even more diversified. I believe we can celebrate, build upon and unleash the full potential of global diversity for the benefit of all humankind.

This brings me to the second basic conclusion I wish to share with you. In the same way as democracy is the best response to competing interests at the national level, the most effective response to competing national interests at the global level is the democratization of global governance.

This means that in the face of the many disparate national interests being put forward in global forums, we must now earnestly look for common ground.

In this regard, I recall that when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono addressed UNESCO in Paris last year, he cited decisive changes that were exerting a profound impact on the global order.

One of the most crucial of these changes is the growing role of the developing world in the global economy.

The rise of the emerging economies, their calls for reform of the international financial architecture and their willingness to work with the developed world to solve global problems, represents a unique opportunity for democratization within international governance.

I sincerely believe that the democratization that took place at the national level in Indonesia — and in other nations making a transition similar to ours — can be replicated at the global level to address competing national interests. If we all work together to carry this out, the benefits for all people everywhere will be tremendous.

The moderates in the world should not feel isolated from one another for there is no lack of forums and processes for dialogue among faiths, cultures and civilizations. And yet there are still outbreaks of violence in many parts of the world that stem from prejudice and intolerance.

This does not mean that dialogue doesn’t work. But it may mean that dialogue has not yet spread itself wide enough and that there is room for further inclusion.

As Prime Minister Najib said in his keynote address, we have to make the voice of reason louder than the voice of hatred. We have to take risks. We must summon every bit of courage within ourselves and exercise it.

That is why I am optimistic about this Global Movement of Moderates and its tremendous capacity to promote dialogue.

The article is an excerpt from a speech by Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty M. Natalegawa at the International Conference on the Global Movement of Moderates in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Jan. 18, 2012.

Discourse: ‘Free trade for the sake of fair trade’

The Jakarta Post | Tue, 01/24/2012 10:03 AM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

The new trade minister, Gita Wirjawan, has been much lauded as well as criticized for his controversial ban on raw rattan exports. Speaking to The Jakarta Post’s Linda Yulisman and Andi Haswidi, he explains his view on Indonesian trade policies and why one should think twice before calling him a protectionist. Below are excerpts from the interview:

Question: Former trade minister Mari Elka Pangestu said last August that exports could grow between 18 and 20 percent this year. Is this target still realistic considering the economic crises in our traditional export destinations?

Answer: It’s relevant in terms of our having to work hard toward it. But, is it realistic? Probably not, given the fact that there’s been an apparent decline in economic activities in the Western European economy and US economy.

For sure, we will have to be much more proactive with respect to our traditional markets to achieve an increase of over and above whatever we achieved in 2011, which was a record, and this is attributable to what Bu Mari achieved in the past, the foundations that
she set.

But, I think it will take time to cultivate the new non-traditional markets in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central America and South America. But, I think for the purposes of 2013 onward, probably we will be able to maintain a much broader base of export destinations.

We will focus on nontraditional markets and we will also focus on a higher degree of value-added components in whatever exports we market. That policy basically will be geared to making sure there are more value-added components in what we export.

Do you have an annual target set already?

I think if we can achieve a 5 to 10 percent increase in 2012 over last year’s number, that would be an achievement already, given the fact that Europe is going through a very, very difficult time. The United States is also going through a difficult time and for sure, there are many countries outside Europe and the United States that we export our goods and services to, that are linked to the declining economic activities in Europe and United States.

So, we are not completely decoupled; there are a lot of places that we can actually think about exporting to in Asia Pacific, in other parts of the world. These are actually intermediary toward the end game in Europe and the US.

You mentioned developing exports to nontraditional markets. How would you rate the success of these measures?

We are not at a point where we can evaluate whether we have been successful, but as for confidence and prospects with respect to the non-traditional markets, yes, those exist. For example, Africa. Seven out of the 10 highest-growth economies in the world in the last decade have been in Africa, whether it’s Nigeria, or other countries, Botswana, South Africa. These are all, I think, rising economies that we have to pay
attention to.

South Africa in itself is a US$380 billion economy, very big, half the size of our economy. There are 1.5 million Indonesians and Indonesian descendants living in Capetown. These are people who basically traveled over to South Africa 200 years ago from Sulawesi and Java. They have the same tongue as we do, so it is impossible for them not to like Indonesian consumer products.

The way I think about it, if we trade with another country, the combined GDP and whatever, the trade has to be at least 1 percent of the combined GDP.

You have been touted as a champion of protectionism following the ban on rattan exports and your statement on the so-called “great barrier wall”. How do you respond to that?

I am not against exports. I am much more in favor of exporting goods that have value added. Does that put me in the protectionist box? I am not so sure.

Secondly, I make the argument that we have detected and identified hundreds, if not thousands of products — food and/or non-food — which are non-compliant with the rules and regulations with regard to safety, security, health and environment. Have I come up with these new rules and regulations? No. I am only applying the rules. So the bar has been set and I am only making sure that we go up to the level of the bar which has been set.

Does that make me a protectionist? Or is the perception of me being a protectionist being created by people who want to see me as a protectionist? There’s a difference. If you want to see me as a protectionist, you will see me as a protectionist.

But, time will tell, as to whether we’re doing the right things. Now, it is tough when we announce thousands of products are in violation [of the rules]. It will be tough to do that without stirring people’s emotions. Why? Because people have vested interests. They have vested interests in making sure that the goods that we consume stay in violation
of the rules.

Former minister Mari was known for her active engagement in liberalization of trade through free-trade agreements or other kinds of economic partnerships.

So am I. I was responsible for making sure that the tariff with New Zealand and Australia got ratified in time, so we could get it into effect on Jan. 10 with ASEAN, New Zealand and Australia. I am in favor of that.

I also basically make sure that the consultation on the study that was done on the South Korea and
Indonesia comprehensive economic partnership got started. But it’s going to be free trade for the sake of fair trade. Now you can justify any free trade cooperation with anybody, especially if we have a strong investment thesis behind that.

I think it becomes difficult when you send bauxite to another country and you end up buying cameras. There needs to have fair and balanced trade components between two countries. That’s the spirit I want going forward. That does not make me antiliberal. That does not make me anti-free trade. But it depends. If you want to perceive me as anti-free trade, feel free.

Look, I think, protectionism is defined when any particular government is subsidizing a particular sector or some sectors with a huge amount of money to the extent that it does create a policy distortion.

You’re talking about the US and Europe?

Yeah. They spend about a $100 billion dollars for the agriculture in the US and about $75 to $80 billion in the European Union. That seems protectionist. You should call the EU the great wall of whatever. The greatest. Now, I mean, that’s fair when people say things like that.

In response to potential rising protectionism following the crisis, what will the government do, because countries, for example Brazil, are upgrading their trade security personnel?

It’s happening everywhere. Obama is just now consolidating some of its agencies and they are going to strengthen their consumer protection. Brazil, as you noted. India, they’re taking a more stringent stance with respect to goods and services coming into the country.

I think that’s the concern that we’re seeing; the rate that multilateralism does not work, regionalism and bilateralism would take place in a bigger way.

When there is bilateralism, increasing degrees of bilateralism, there tends to be one country that benefits more than the other country, which doesn’t benefit as much. But, at the same time people will react by taking a more protectionist posture.

I think that’s the danger that we have to prevent and avoid. But again, going back to our tariff regime; we have awaited an average tariff regime of 6.8 percent across the board for all the goods and services that come into the country, they get charged 6.8 percent as compared to China at 10 percent, India at 14 percent.

Now, how can anybody call Indonesia protectionist? That’s pretty misplaced. We will go by the principle of whatever rules and regulations have been promulgated. We will be in a position to make sure that they are implemented in accordance with the spirit of law.

Monday, January 9, 2012

US making sure no countries dominate South China Sea

Xinyan Yu, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 01/10/2012 11:47 PM A | A | A | - Klipping The Jakarta Post

The United States will remain engaged in bringing stability, security and confidence to the ASEAN region in a commitment to promote global interest in the prosperity of the region, said a former US secretary of defense.

“It’s a small world spinning faster and faster every day. No matter it’s Democrats or Republicans (controlling US congress), at the end of day, we will realize that we can’t survive without the stability and prosperity of this region. It’s in our self-interest and also the global interest,” said former senator and congressman William Cohen, the current co-chair of the US-ASEAN Strategy Commission, in a public lecture at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta on Monday.

Against the backdrop of China’s growing power in the region, the US will keep playing a stabilizing role, said Cohen. “Like how Harvard Professor Joseph Nye described
America in his book The Paradox of American Power, if one country grows too strong, other countries will align together to restrain its power.”

However, given US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s numerous visits to the region and the deployment of 2,500 marines in Darwin, Australia, America’s shifting focus to the Asia Pacific should not be considered to create tension or confrontation between the US and China in the region, said Cohen.

Regarding the ongoing South China Sea terrestrial waters dispute specifically, he said: “Our position is not there to resolve problems, but to become facilitators for discussions and make sure that it [South China Sea] is not dominated by one country.”

Cohen suggested more maritime exercises between Indonesia and America for humanitarian purposes such as strengthening rescue efforts in cases of natural disasters. “China should be involved as well for our multilateral [military] exercises. They can choose to decline, but we should still invite them to show that our exercises are legitimate in promoting regional security and
stability.”

China’s rise provides a unique challenge and opportunity for ASEAN countries, but as when China blocked rare earth trade to Japan to protest the detainment of a Chinese boat captain, it sometimes causes tension and anxiety in the Pacific region. America vows to make sure China’s growing power is integrated in the region stability, Cohen said.

To build a stronger ASEAN region, Cohen urged Indonesia to work toward a greater community with more unity of actions, especially in issues related to human rights, freedom and democracy. With challenges of fighting terrorism, piracy and human, animal and drug trafficking, America and ASEAN should share techniques and technology. He also called for a reduction in trade barriers in the region to open markets fairly and impartially to all parties and generate tremendous prosperity.

Military buildup in S. China Sea amid tension

Mustaqim Adamrah, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 12/06/2011 11:02 AM A | A | A | - Klipping The Jakarta Post

Several countries with overlapping claims in the South China Sea are reportedly building up their military powers in the territory — a move that may endanger regional security and stability.

According to Indonesian Center of Democracy, Diplomacy and Defense executive director Teuku Rezasyah, Malaysia has two battleships, the Philippines one, China 27 and Taiwan 26 operating in the South China Sea.

He said Vietnam had several escort vessels operating in the area, while no data was available for
Brunei’s operations there.

“China’s 27 naval vessels do not even include the aircraft carrier and submarines [it operates in the South China Sea],” he told The Jakarta Post recently.

He said a Type 093 Shang class nuclear-powered attack submarine was observed at the pier under construction.

Significant construction is still underway at the Yalong Bay Naval Base on Hainan Island, including a fourth submarine pier at the southern section of the base, increased camouflage over the submarine pen and a bunkered rail line on the eastern side of the basin peninsula, he said.

“China has successfully massively reclaimed shores on Nam Yit Island and Southwest Cay Island, which borders the Philippines. China has made those hubs for its aircraft carriers based on satellite imagery,”
Rezasyah said.

He said that China was likely preparing for a worst-case scenario, with Nam Yit Island able to support three aircraft carriers.

China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam and Taiwan all have overlapping claims in the South China Sea, which is estimated to have oil and natural gas reserves amounting to 17.7 billion tons, making it the world’s fourth-largest reserve bed.

The Paracels are claimed by China and Vietnam; Scarborough Shoals and Reed Bank are claimed by China and the Philippines; Tungsha is claimed by China and Taiwan; the Spratlys are claimed by China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, according to the ASEAN Secretariat.

According to Reza, Malaysia has built military bases on Layang-layang, a resort island that has a 1,356-meter-long airplane runway and is only 300 kilometers away from Kota Kinabalu in Malaysia’s Sabah.

Northeast Cay Island, which is claimed by the Philippines, is integrated with the United States 7th Fleet. Although it is hard to physically verify it, “planes that are used in that area are the same planes used by the US 7th Fleet”, he said.

Taiwan is building up its military forces in Tai Ping Dao Island (Itu Aba Island), which is also claimed by China, the Philippines and Vietnam, he said.

“What I’m afraid of is if China seizes Tai Ping Dao Island, which is claimed by Taiwan, because there will be no one who can do anything to help, not even ASEAN, thanks to the one China policy,” Rezasyah said.

The territorial disputes in the South China Sea have brought the US into the field that is anticipating the risk of Chinese aggression possibly through its plan to deploy 2,500 US marines in Australia’s Darwin, which is only 820 kilometers away from Indonesia.

Already, the US has 29,086 military personnel at its bases in South Korea and 35,688 military personnel at its bases in Japan, according to various sources.

The US also allegedly asked for Indonesia’s help to counter China by asking Indonesia to use its newly granted F-16 fighter jets to help the US deal with China “if anything bad happens in the South China Sea”, a source told the Post.

Military bases pose a threat to peace in the South China Sea

Mustaqim Adamrah, The Jakarta Post, Nusa Dua, Bali | Sat, 07/23/2011 10:09 AM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta post

ASEAN may have completed the guidelines for the declaration of conduct in the South China Sea, but problems are likely to remain with the presence of military bases that belong to claimants.

ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said Thursday that four ASEAN member states, would have to resolve issues of military bases in the South China Sea.

“That is what the claimants will have to discuss between themselves,” he told reporters in a limited interview on the sidelines of a series of ASEAN meetings here. “They are committed to avoiding open conflicts. They have committed themselves to resorting to peaceful means, to negotiations and discussions. They will certainly show that they are complying with the guidelines.”

China and four ASEAN countries — Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam — as well as Taiwan have laid overlapping claims in the Paracels and the Spratlys in the South China Sea, with China claiming the largest part.

Satellite imagery, passed to The Daily Telegraph, shows that a substantial harbor has been built, which could house a score of nuclear ballistic missile submarines and a host of aircraft carriers, the British newspaper reported.

In what will be a significant challenge to US Navy dominance and to countries ringing the South China Sea, one photograph shows China’s latest 094 nuclear submarine at the base, just a few hundred miles from its neighbors.

Other images show numerous warships moored to long jettys and a network of underground tunnels at the Sanya base on the southern tip of Hainan Island.

According to University of Indonesia security expert Andi Widjajanto, the Philippines’ armada has moved further west since last month, while Vietnam’s armada — the largest among the ASEAN claimants in the disputed waters — is moving closer to China, leading to clashes between the two ASEAN countries and China, which has far more power in the area as well as oil and gas exploration vessels accompanied by Chinese military ships.

The guidelines, approved by the bloc on Wednesday, regulate joint projects by ASEAN members and China in the fields of marine environment, SARS, transnational crimes, the safety of navigation and biodiversity.

The guidelines, however, which Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario says are not satisfactory, do not specifically regulate joint exploration of oil and gas.

It is estimated that oil and natural gas reserves in the Spratly region amount to 17.7 billion tons, making it the world’s fourth-largest reserve bed.

China traded barbs with Vietnam and the Philippines after several incidents that occurred last month, which the Southeast Asian nations said was Chinese “harassment”.

Beijing denied the allegation, saying it would only use violence when attacked, while warning its Asian neighbors to stop searching for oil near the disputed Spratly Islands and vowed to assert its sovereignty, the Associated Press reported.

Surin said one of the purposes of maintaing such guidelines was to stop any incidents of harassment.

“Whether or not it will lead to that, we will have to hold on to the commitment that the parties have made — that there will be no violence, that there will be no open conflict and that this will not affect security in the region,” he said.

“And that is part of the claimants’ will to enter into direct discussions on the conflict issue, piece by piece, one by one, area by area.”

Andi said he saw no end to disputes in the South China Sea between the ASEAN claimants and China if the regional grouping left the issue of the presence of military bases in the disputed waters up to both of them.

“There is no hope [to see this problem end] because both sides [the ASEAN claimants and China] have different approaches,” he told The Jakarta Post.

“They can’t even agree on the format of negotiations, with the Philippines and Vietnam, for example, eager to internationalize the South China Sea issues and China wanting to keep them bilaterally, let alone starting the negotiations.”



The presence of military bases in the South China Sea pose problems and should be resolved
Satellite imagery shows that a substantial harbor has been built to house a score of nuclear ballistic missile submarines and a host of aircraft carriers

Philippine military chief to focus on Spratlys row

Jim Gomez, The Associated Press, Manila | Mon, 12/12/2011 6:04 PM A | A | A | - Klipping The Jakarta Post

A battle-scarred general took leadership of the underfunded Philippine military Monday, vowing to bolster his country's external defense so it could adequately respond to "untoward incidents" amid territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

The 125,000-member Philippine military, one of Asia's weakest, has been struggling to modernize its dilapidated air force and navy and train its forces due to a lack of funds. President Benigno Aquino III recently said he would seek modern fighter jets from longtime ally Washington when he visits next year.

Army Lt. Gen. Jessie Dellosa, who took over the military leadership in austere ceremonies led by Aquino on Monday, said recent developments in the South China Sea - obviously referring to renewed territorial spats in the potentially oil-rich region - have made upgrading external defenses inevitable for the Philippines.

"It compels us to look into our maritime security deeply," Dellosa said in his speech. "Development of navy and air force bases and facilities to efficiently respond to untoward incidents is something we can no longer ignore."

Dellosa formerly was an army combat officer and was wounded twice while battling guerrillas and al-Qaeda-linked militants in the southern Philippines. He also led an elite unit that helped Aquino's mother, the late pro-democracy Philippine leader Corazon Aquino, subdue coup attempts.

Dellosa replaced Gen. Eduardo Oban Jr., who focused on battling graft and corruption in the military during his stint. Dellosa said he would also wage "an all-out-war" against military corruption.

Already spread thinly while dealing with raging insurgencies, the military began to focus on external defense especially after Filipino officials accused Chinese government vessels of repeatedly intruding into Philippine-claimed territories in and near the South China Sea's disputed Spratly Islands in the first half of the year.

Philippine and Vietnamese authorities also accused Chinese vessels of trying to sabotage oil explorations within their territorial waters, an allegation Beijing has denied.

China, the Philippines and Vietnam, along with Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei claim the South China Sea and its cluster of islands, islets, reefs and coral outcrops partly or in its entirety. The region is believed to be sitting atop vast deposits of oil and natural gas and also straddle busy sea lanes.

The South China Sea has long been regarded as Asia's next flashpoint for conflict.

US making sure no countries dominate South China Sea

Xinyan Yu, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 01/10/2012 11:47 PM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

The United States will remain engaged in bringing stability, security and confidence to the ASEAN region in a commitment to promote global interest in the prosperity of the region, said a former US secretary of defense.

“It’s a small world spinning faster and faster every day. No matter it’s Democrats or Republicans (controlling US congress), at the end of day, we will realize that we can’t survive without the stability and prosperity of this region. It’s in our self-interest and also the global interest,” said former senator and congressman William Cohen, the current co-chair of the US-ASEAN Strategy Commission, in a public lecture at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta on Monday.

Against the backdrop of China’s growing power in the region, the US will keep playing a stabilizing role, said Cohen. “Like how Harvard Professor Joseph Nye described
America in his book The Paradox of American Power, if one country grows too strong, other countries will align together to restrain its power.”

However, given US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s numerous visits to the region and the deployment of 2,500 marines in Darwin, Australia, America’s shifting focus to the Asia Pacific should not be considered to create tension or confrontation between the US and China in the region, said Cohen.

Regarding the ongoing South China Sea terrestrial waters dispute specifically, he said: “Our position is not there to resolve problems, but to become facilitators for discussions and make sure that it [South China Sea] is not dominated by one country.”

Cohen suggested more maritime exercises between Indonesia and America for humanitarian purposes such as strengthening rescue efforts in cases of natural disasters. “China should be involved as well for our multilateral [military] exercises. They can choose to decline, but we should still invite them to show that our exercises are legitimate in promoting regional security and
stability.”

China’s rise provides a unique challenge and opportunity for ASEAN countries, but as when China blocked rare earth trade to Japan to protest the detainment of a Chinese boat captain, it sometimes causes tension and anxiety in the Pacific region. America vows to make sure China’s growing power is integrated in the region stability, Cohen said.

To build a stronger ASEAN region, Cohen urged Indonesia to work toward a greater community with more unity of actions, especially in issues related to human rights, freedom and democracy. With challenges of fighting terrorism, piracy and human, animal and drug trafficking, America and ASEAN should share techniques and technology. He also called for a reduction in trade barriers in the region to open markets fairly and impartially to all parties and generate tremendous prosperity.

RI to fully implement free trade deal with OZ, NZ

Linda Yulisman, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Tue, 01/10/2012 12:13 PM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

Under the framework of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Indonesia is set on Tuesday to fully implement a free trade agreement (FTA) with neighboring Australia and New Zealand.

The Trade Ministry’s director general for international trade cooperation Gusmardi Bustami said on Monday that local producers would gain many benefits from lower tariffs on various products covered by the FTA.

“Around 90 percent of tariffs in Australia and New Zealand will be eliminated following our implementation of the agreement,” he said.

Indonesia is the last ASEAN member-state to join the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA after calls from several business groups to delay ratifying the deal over concerns of huge losses to local businesses.

The negotiations on the establishment of a free trade area with ASEAN’s 10 members began in 2005. The deal was sealed on Feb. 27, 2009, in Phetchaburi, Thailand, at the 14th ASEAN Summit.

According to the tariff commitments, Indonesia will eliminate 90 percent of 10,000 tariffs listed in the normal track when the deal comes into force on Tuesday.

The products impacted include imports of live animals, fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, milk, cheese, eggs, pharmaceuticals and wood and paper products.

Tariffs on goods on sensitive lists, such as beef and dairy products, will be removed by 2020 to give local producers more time to prepare.

Based on the schedule, a further 6 percent of tariffs categorized in the sensitive track, which covers 1,000 items, will be phased out gradually by 2020, while the lifting of the remaining 4 percent of tariffs comprising 400 items will depend on further negotiations.

Following the removal of the tariffs, Gusmardi said, Indonesian products might compete better with products from other countries, such as China.

“This gives us an opportunity to sell several of our products that have had difficulties gaining market access there,” he said. Gusmardi further asserted that Indonesia’s economic relations with Australia and New Zealand were complementary in nature and the tariff removal on the Indonesian side would pose little risk to local businesses as few Indonesian products competed head-to-head with rivals from those countries.

Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo) deputy chairman Anton Supit agreed, feeling that the benefits outweighed the costs.

“We can better compete with products from other countries that do not have a similar deal with Australia and New Zealand,” he said.

However, Anton noted that the lower tariffs would not bring immediate benefits unless local manufacturers boosted their competitiveness.

Indonesian Cattle and Water Buffalo Breeders Association secretary general Rochadi Tawaf said that local breeders were still opposed to the removal of tariffs on dairy products.

A zero tariff on milk, for example, would prompt milk processing plants to buy imported milk, which would be cheaper than local milk that enjoyed no government incentives, he said.

“Another risk is that we will be open to second or third quality meat imports, which will be sold at a very low price. This in turn, will distort the local market,” he said.

According to Rochadi, the government should create an improved business climate through low interest rates and similar assistance to that offered by the Australian and New Zealand governments.

Country profiles

* Indonesia
Population: 237 million
GDP per capita (nominal): US$3,464

*Australia
Population: 22.7 million
GDP per capita (nominal): $66,984

* New Zealand
Population: 4.4 million
GDP per capita (nominal): $32,145

Monday, January 2, 2012

Peacekeeping operations and Indonesian foreign policy

Yayan G.H. Mulyana, Jakarta | Tue, 01/03/2012 6:00 AM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

On Dec. 19, 2011, President Yudhoyono officially announced the opening of a peacekeeping facility as part of the Indonesian Peace and Security Center in Sentul, Bogor. Through the peacekeeping center, Indonesia is expected to employ more peacekeepers with sufficient language proficiency, to develop stand by forces, and enhance its rapid deployment capacity.

President Yudhoyono also underlined the constitutional mandate and the perennial issue of maintaining international peace and security. These are two factors that ensure the persistent relevance and importance of Indonesia’s contribution to peacekeeping operations, in particular under the UN umbrella.

Peacekeeping operations have become an important instrument of Indonesia’s independent and active foreign policy. Its landmark contribution is a series of Garuda Contingents. The idea of a Garuda Contingent is as inventive as the idea of peacekeeping operations.

In the absence of viability of the concept of collective security as highlighted in the UN Charter in the height of the Cold War in 1950s, UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld came up with an idea of establishing an emergency international UN Force to supervise the cessation of hostilities in the Suez Canal zone. With the authorization of the UN General Assembly, the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed, and marked the beginning of the first generation of UN peacekeeping operations.

Hammarskjöld regarded Indonesia as an impartial troop-contributing country (TCC) to UNEF. In response to the call for participation in UNEF, the first Garuda Contingent (Garuda Contingent I) was born. The Contingent was an Army battalion with 400 personnel consisting of a command group, three gun companies, and one platoon with artillery mortar and machine gun assistance. The Contingent personnel were drawn from the Infantry Regiment 15 of the Territorial Army IV/Diponegoro and the Infantry Regiment 18 of Territorial Army V/Brawijaya.

Since UNEF I, Indonesia has deployed its Garuda Contingents in UN missions in the Republic of Congo (ONUC) in 1961-1963, in the Middle East (UNEF II) 1973–1979, in Iraq (UNIMOG) in 1988–1990, in Namibia (UNTAG) in June–December 1989, and Kuwait (UNIKOM) in 1991–2003.

The end of the Cold War in the late 1980s put some interstate conflicts to rest, but the world was still far from being peaceful as internal conflicts were evolving. The Balkan wars and intercommunal conflict in Siera Leonne and Rwanda, among others, had caused a surge in the demand for peacekeeping operations. As the post-Cold War era was unfolding, the Indonesian Garuda Contingents were taking part in many UN peace missions in Cambodia (UNTAC) in 1992–1993, in Somalia (UNOSOM) in 1992–1995, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNPROFOR and UNMIBH) in 1993– 2002, in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) in 1999–2005, and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC—now MONUSCO) from March 2001 until today.

UNTAC has been regarded as a multidimensional mission that symbolizes a new generation of peacekeeping operations. Its strong peace building element had included a large number of civilians in the mission, in addition to military components. Indonesia’s role was notable not only in the implementation of the mission but also in the political process through the Jakarta Informal Meetings (JIM) leading toward the Paris Agreement. Based on this Agreement, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 745 (1992), which authorized the establishment of UNTAC. This mission was to comprise between 15,000 and 20,000 UN personnel, including human rights, civil administration and military components, as well as a police component of some 3,600 police monitors.

Today, Indonesia’s participation in the UN peacekeeping operations is entering a new chapter. This is true at least for two reasons.

First, for the first time in the history of Indonesia’s peacekeeping operations, Indonesia contributes its naval vessels as part of the UNIFIL Maritime Task Force. Indonesia is one of a few countries that support the Lebanese Navy in monitoring Lebanese territorial waters, securing its coastline and preventing the unauthorized entry of arms or related material by sea into the country. This deployment is in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006). This adds to the existing size of the Garuda Contingent in UNIFIL that has reached 1,456 peacekeepers — one of the largest.

Second, for the first time Indonesia participates in a UN peace mission in the Americas, namely the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). Before, Asia and Africa, then Europe, had been the traditional area of deployment of the Garuda Contingent. Now, with Indonesia’s contribution of military and police personnel in MINUSTAH, the world becomes the theater of deployment for the Garuda Contingent.

With the establishment of the peacekeeping center, Indonesia has the opportunity to develop a peacekeeping operations capacity that meets the requirements as outlined in the Brahimi reforms of the UN peacekeeping operations; to develop a rapid deployment capacity and to fulfill the vision of deploying 4,000 peacekeepers.

It is also important that the newly established center includes in its priorities a capacity to contribute a civilian component to a multidimensional peacekeeping mission. This civilian component would comprise legal experts, engineers, accountants, development specialists, public administration experts, electoral specialists, medical doctors, education specialists, and other relevant professionals.

Peacekeeping operations will continue to be an essential instrument of Indonesian bebas aktif foreign policy. And the newly founded peacekeeping center could help the country enlarge its contribution to the UN and other peace missions in the future.

The writer is an assistant to Special Staff to the President for international relations. The opinions are his own.