Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Failed state indicators challenges to ASEAN


Hafid Abbas, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, August 01 2012, 8:12 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post
A- A A+
Paper Edition | Page: 6
The recent publication of The Fund for Peace 2012, Failed States Index, has created world-wide controversy. Those who are displeased by the report criticize its failure to take into account indicators like cultural diversity and other factors that we can not simply quantify.

Indonesia deems the report inaccurate and baseless since the country is enjoying fantastic economic growth of up to 6.5 percent; is strongly committed to democratization and decentralization; promotes and protects human rights and has considerable press freedom.

Despite creating widespread disagreement, the report could be important for ASEAN members to address internal matters and accelerate the realization of “ASEAN Community 2015”. It is also relevant to the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) which was launched at the summit in 2000.

Recently, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen told other leaders that the main agenda was to transform ourselves into a European Union-like community in only three years’ time.

The Fund for Peace report presents various issues which cannot be solved by individual countries in isolation. Myanmar is the only ASEAN country in a “critical” condition.

From social and political indicators, Myanmar continues to deteriorate. Its score in 11 out of 12 of indicators is above seven on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being worst. Its state legitimacy score is 9.4 (corruption and lack of representation in the government); “uneven economic development” scores 8.7 (ethnic, religious, or regional disparities); “Group grievances” (tension and violence between groups and the state’s ability to provide security) also scored 8.7.

Four countries are in danger of plunging to the ‘failed state’ category: Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Indonesia. Cambodia for example, has nine out of 12 indicator scores with scores above seven.

The worst indicator is its progressive deterioration of public services, while Laos has serious problems on human rights especially the rise of factionalized elites.

Similarly, the Philippines is facing a critical issue with security. Indonesia, meanwhile, is considered very weak in social indicators especially the mounting demographic pressures related to natural disasters, disease, environmental degradation, pollution, food scarcity, malnutrition, water scarcity, population growth, youth bulge and mortality rate.

The third category comprises Thailand and Vietnam. According to the report, Thailand has to address the long-standing issue of factionalized elites.

Its local and national leaders are embroiled in disputes and brinksmanship for political gain, power struggles, defectors, flawed elections and political competition. Vietnam has to address critical issues concerning state legitimacy and human rights, which include press freedom and civil liberties.

The fifth group consists of countries in the “safe zone”: Malaysia and Brunei. Malaysia is very weak on human rights, lack of press and political freedom, torture and opposition figures jailed as political prisoners. Brunei has a dominant issue on uneven economic development related to ethnic, religious, or regional disparities, a yawning gap between the rich and the poor, slum populations, etc.

Then the only ASEAN country to have reached the level of “a very stable state”: Singapore. The only issue facing the wealthy city state is human rights, particularly press and political freedom.

Given these circumstances, there must be a collective and genuine ASEAN solidarity to immediately reduce the gaps between nations in the spirit of the 1967 Bangkok Declaration, ASEAN Vision 2020 and the ongoing creation of a single community of nations by 2015. Without joint effort, ASEAN dream will remain an empty dream.

The writer is currently a professor at the State University of Jakarta and former director general of Law and Human Rights Ministry and  IIEP UNESCO consultant

What to do next to keep ASEAN unity and peace?


Lina A. Alexandra, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, August 01 2012, 8:29 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post
A- A A+
Paper Edition | Page: 7
Less than a month before the 45th anniversary of ASEAN, the regional organization failed to conclude its routine ministerial meeting with a usual joint communiqué. If we are to find an excuse for this failure, ASEAN is analogous to a 5-year-old boy – given the establishment of its Charter in 2007.

As reflected in a comment made by the first US Ambassador to ASEAN, David Carden, the tension among the member states is indeed “normal” in the growing process of ASEAN.

What are the implications for ASEAN after this failure, however?

First, it is obvious that there will be a lack of an agenda to be affirmed in the next ASEAN Summit in November since the communiqué usually sets the key points for the leaders to be followed up at the highest level.

Moreover, some important agenda items, i.e. the drafting process of ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the direction for East Asian Summit will significantly be affected by this failure.

Second, the failure of Cambodia’s chairmanship to come up with the joint communiqué “positively” pushes ASEAN to rethink of its consensus-based decision making process, which has been repeatedly criticized.

The consensus process allows any member to have veto power and to impose its own views even if its position differs from the other nine member states.

It is interesting to compare the case with Indonesia’s decision in 2009 to finally sign the terms of reference of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, although it still reserved many disagreements with the draft due to the minimum articles aimed at the protection of human rights because of this consensus mechanism.

If this mechanism persists, it will definitely set a bad precedent for the next chairman and also any member state in the future to maintain their stands when a difference of opinions occurs.

Third, again, it is important to reemphasize that what has been feared by many has materialized — external actor can, indeed, steer and divide ASEAN.

Whether it is because of the external actor’s sheer size and power from which none of the member states can escape or the fact that since ASEAN’s establishment it has never had a common vision to become one community bound together.

Perhaps it is both. It is indeed a major blow for ASEAN despite some of its achievements in the past few years.

What next then? The initiative of Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to conduct “charm diplomacy” by visiting Manila, Hanoi and Phnom Penh is laudable.

But, rather than just listening to their views and expectations, it is crucial to continue the process of realizing the code of conduct (CoC).

We cannot wait any longer to present ASEAN’s common position on this CoC draft to be negotiated further with Chinese counterparts.

Any delay will result in a worsening of the situation, as China gets bigger in terms of its power and influence, making negotiations even more difficult to manage.

Now is the right time to really start thinking about the establishment of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) Part II to affirm member states’ commitment to maintaining the region’s neutrality from the influence and competition of major powers, which attempt to divide ASEAN along lines of external interests.

If it is part of the growing process, then ASEAN should quickly recover from this failure — or hiccup, to borrow the secretary-general’s term. But, as always, it depends on each member to reflect and think about whether they really wish this ASEAN boat to continue sailing toward its ultimate goals.

The writer is currently a researcher in the department of politics and international relations at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and guest lecturer at the graduate school of diplomacy, Paramadina University, Jakarta.

Friday, July 27, 2012

China, RI begin missile talks


Margareth S. Aritonang and Novan Iman Santosa, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Headlines | Fri, July 27 2012, 9:48 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post
A- A A+
Paper Edition | Page: 1
 (AP/Chiang Ying-ying)(AP/Chiang Ying-ying)
China and Indonesia have started talks on the ambitious local production of C-705 anti-ship missiles
as part of Indonesia’s efforts to achieve independence in weapons production.

The defense cooperation reflects strengthening ties between both countries amid heightening tension in the South China Sea involving China and a number of Indonesia’s ASEAN neighbors.

Defense Ministry chief spokesman Brig. Gen. Hartind Asrin said that the initial talks were conducted during the first China-Indonesia defense industry cooperation meeting held in Jakarta on Wednesday.

The ministry’s defense potential director general Pos M. Hutabarat hosted the Chinese delegation which was led by Liu Yunfeng, a deputy director general at the Chinese State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND).

“The meeting discussed various efforts to improve cooperation between the defense industries of both countries,” Hartind said on Thursday. “We’ve already prepared an area for the [missile] production site that faces the open sea for trials.”

Hartind said the C-705 had a range of 120 kilometers.

He said that the Indonesian Navy had successfully test-fired the C-705 missiles in the Sunda Strait.

“China has also offered to donate weapons systems that Indonesia might need,” he added.

A source said that Indonesia was expected to reply to Phase 1 of the missile proposal at the end of August and Phase 2 one month later. A contract is expected to be signed in 2013.

Phase 1 is on semi-knocked down production while Phase 2 is on completely-knocked down production.

A proposal for a Phase 3 on research and development is already on the table although the focus is currently on the first two phases.

Aside from the missile production, a number of Indonesian Army Special Force Command (Kopassus) members recently conducted the second “Sharp Knife” joint exercise with Chinese Special Forces operatives earlier this month in Jinan, Shandong, China.

China has also offered to train 10 pilots from the Indonesian Air Force to train using a Sukhoi simulator in China.

Commenting on the defense cooperation, defense expert Andi
Widjajanto said the industrial cooperation was solely to gain access to more advanced technology.

“However, it will take a long time for us to be independent in the defense industry, perhaps after 2024. This is the reason Indonesia builds partnerships with many countries that possess modern military technologies,” he said. “This is also why we require partner countries to transfer their technologies to us in any agreement we sign with them.”

Andi added that there were two goals in terms of the partnership: to access advanced rocket technology, and to collaborate in upholding maritime security, which began when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed an agreement in March during a state visit to Beijing.

“I don’t believe it has anything to do with conflicts in the South China Sea,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Commission I on defense issues, Mahfudz Shiddiq, said such global partnerships in the defense industry were designed to develop Indonesia’s own industry.

“We have allocated Rp 150 trillion [US$15.8 billion] to modernize our weapons-defense system from 2010 to 2014. It would be wasteful paying such a huge amount to foreign defense industries without any attempt to improve our own,” he said.

“Therefore, we require partner countries to transfer their military technologies in the hope that they will gradually improve our own technologies.”

He added that the partnership with China was due to its advanced military technologies in fields such as rocketry. “This is not political, even though others might link the partnership to political issues, for example the South China Sea disputes,” Machfudz said.

Indonesia already cooperates on weapons production with several other countries including South Korea to build jet fighters and submarines, the Netherlands to build frigates and Spain to build medium transport aircraft.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

ASEAN: Chartering human rights



A- A A+
Paper Edition | Page: 7
Mid-July saw ASEAN sink to unprecedented depths when leaders failed to issue a joint communiqué at its latest Ministerial Meeting in Cambodia because of disagreement over reference to the South China Sea dispute with China. Unsurprisingly, the Indonesian foreign minister called this latest roadblock to “ASEAN consensus” “utterly irresponsible”.

ASEAN consensus focuses on agreement among the governments of member states instead of consensus with the population. It routinely avoids and even suppresses public participation in key debates and initiatives relevant to the public interest. Nowhere is this more evident than the process of drafting an ASEAN human rights declaration.

The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) is tasked with drafting the declaration, but has done this largely behind tightly closed doors. Limited consultations with civil society organizations have been held in some member states, and at no point was a draft published, leaving the public and human rights groups in the dark. There has only been one formal consultation at the regional level, but participation has been heavily restricted and the draft declaration was not published.

That human rights defenders and their organizations have made every effort to comment and provide recommendations on a text that they have never seen is a testament to their commitment to promote international human rights standards. The same cannot be said of AICHR and the governments to whom it reports.

Om Yentieng, a high-level Cambodian official and his country’s representative to AICHR, told reporters in June that “NGOs want to write [the declaration] instead of us, but they don’t know their duties.” He went on to say that the declaration “is for all 800 million ASEAN people, so if those 800 million people want to help, in 800 million years we will not be able to finish it.”

Om overestimated the total population in ASEAN by about 200 million. His apparent faulty statistic aside, the condescending comment reveals a bigger problem — ASEAN’s tendency to talk about a people-centered community without actually enabling the people to participate meaningfully in issues that affect their lives.

After receiving the latest draft of the declaration, some ASEAN foreign ministers wished to see AICHR consult with “all stakeholders in ASEAN, including civic society and sectoral bodies of the group, to listen to their opinions on the matters.” Outgoing ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan also waded into the issue by encouraging “more openness”. But AICHR has not announced any further consultations. The foreign ministers also announced their intention to publish only “key elements” of the draft but refused to release it in full on the grounds that it has not been finalized.

The inherent absurdity that a document can simultaneously be open for consultation but cannot be seen in full until it is no longer possible to change it appears to be lost on ASEAN. The most likely explanation of this chronic allergy to transparency is that there are some regressive elements in the declaration.

Some commissioners on AICHR have reassured rights groups that the declaration would not go below international standards, but many, especially countless victims of human rights violations, would find it difficult to take them at their words.

During AICHR’s existence, it has refused to comment or even acknowledge the arbitrary detention and persecution of many peaceful activists, journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders in most ASEAN member states, made possible by draconian laws that clearly contravene international human rights standards. How can anyone be confident that similar repressive elements have not been embedded into the declaration?

It is now crunch time for ASEAN. It can make the right decision to publish the draft declaration and then conduct broad-based consultations at both the national and regional level. Or it could continue tumbling towards irrelevance and becoming a laughing stock in the international human rights community.

The writer is deputy secretary-general of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

ASEAN, neutral or neutered?



A- A A+
Paper Edition | Page: 7
ASEAN’s failure to issue a communiqué at the end of the ministerial meeting hosted in Cambodia last week shocked many. Reports indicate that drafting floundered on the issue of the South China Sea, where the sovereignty of different islets is disputed. The Philippines wished to record that the matter had been discussed whereas Cambodia, which currently chairs the group, felt that any mention would compromise ASEAN neutrality.

The claims in the South China Sea were never going to be resolved by a statement, however worded. As such, the quite unprecedented failure shows up not so much the struggle to deal with a sensitive issue but rather what it may suggest are more systemic concerns about divisions within ASEAN.

These come precisely at the wrong time when the group needs to show unity and resolve to create an ASEAN Community by 2015. It also dents ASEAN’s credibility as host for dialogues that span not just its own region but a wider footprint, like the newly created East Asia Summit.

Factors of division within the group have been emerging over time. These relate not just to the South China Sea, but more broadly to the roles of the USA and China and such issues as the Mekong River and Myanmar.

The Obama administration’s “pivot” to give more attention to Asia over these last four years has been evident and has largely been well received. But this comes after more than a decade in which China has emerged as the best friend to many. Given the economic dynamics, there is a sense that China will not go away but will grow in importance. This is especially notable in Beijing’s largesse to some in ASEAN.

Take Cambodia, the host of the failed meeting.

Over the last decade, Beijing has provided billions for infrastructure, including the building for the Kingdom’s Council of Ministers. In April, Chinese leader Hu Jintao made a four-day state visit and just a month before the ASEAN Ministerial meeting, a senior Communist party leader visited Phnom Penh with promises to “take strategic approaches to step up the bilateral cooperation to new heights”.

Given that the US market currently remains its largest trade partner, Cambodia seems to be playing a risky game. Intended or otherwise, the failure at the Phnom Penh meeting is seen as favoring China.

Other ASEAN members have come to quite different positions. The Philippines has strengthened its US alliance as Manila asserts its claims to areas in the South China Sea. Vietnam has tilted toward America and the recent visit by US Defense Secretary Panetta to Hanoi raises the possibility for arrangements to host an American military presence at Cam Ranh Bay.

What can the small and medium sized states in ASEAN do, given these great power dynamics?

There are things beyond their control. ASEAN could breathe easier if Beijing and Washington DC recognize their interdependence and that the region is big enough for them both. But if the rhetoric of differences grows louder and it comes to push and shove, ASEAN will be in an invidious position.

Other things are hard but possible. For too long, individual countries’ policies toward China and the USA have been little discussed. Dialogue could help each ASEAN member understand the other’s concerns and, from this, seek common positions. Agreeing upon anchor points about the critical relationships with these giants would help ASEAN maintain centrality.

Last comes what should be do-able and indeed ought to have been done at this last meeting. This is to agree a form of words, a set phrase, about the South China Sea.

Critics will say that papering over differences will not resolve the issue. Of course not, but there are other uses.

Think of papered up forms of words like the “one-China” principle in relation to Taiwan. While this is open to varying interpretations, it has helped frame a range of differences that is understood (but not conceded) by each party.

Not least, if ASEAN can reach such a form of words about the South China Sea, then its communiqués need not be held captive to a single issue. Noting but setting aside what is unresolved, the group would then be able to go on to deal with the rest of its agenda, where consensus is possible.

ASEAN has achieved centrality as a kind of default position, and largely because great powers lack sufficient trust amongst themselves. There are however still necessary conditions to be of use in this role.

Perfect neutrality is impossible, when some of its members are formal allies with one power or receive large amounts of high profile aid from another. But open and healthy dialogue about the fullest possible range of issues is critical for ASEAN-led dialogues to remain relevant.

For this, each ASEAN member must be willing to keep the group’s interest as a whole in view, and not focus solely on its bilateral ties with China or America. Otherwise, ASEAN will not only fail to be neutral, but be ineffective and indeed neutered.

The writer is chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and teaches at the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

U.S, China disagree on more nuke talks with N.Korea


The Associated Press, Beijing, China | Wed, 11/24/2010 9:44 AM A | A | A |-Klipping the Jakarta Post

A U.S. envoy called Wednesday for international condemnation of North Korea over its shelling of a South Korean island, a day after he ruled out resuming six-nation nuclear disarmament talks with the North while it works on a new uranium facility.

Washington's reluctance to resume the talks is at odds with China's position, which is keen to get back to discussions as soon as possible.

Stephen Bosworth has been conducting hurried consultations with North Korea's neighbors, including China, after a U.S. nuclear scientist reported visiting a new sophisticated uranium enrichment plant that could improve North Korea's ability to make and deliver nuclear weapons.

The situation was made more critical after North Korea on Tuesday shelled a populated South Korean island and the South returned fire.

"The United States calls upon the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) to cease its provocative and irresponsible actions against its neighbors and fully abide by the terms of the armistice and adhere to its international obligations," Bosworth told reporters at a Beijing hotel. "We call on all members of the international community to condemn the DPRK's acts and make clear that they expect the DPRK to cease all provocations and implement its denuclearization commitments."

The appeal for a strong reaction was clearly directed at China, North Korea's economic and political benefactor. Beijing's public reaction has been extremely cautious so far, with a Foreign Ministry spokesman expressing concern over the situation and calling on both the North and South to "do more to contribute to peace and stability on the peninsula."

On Tuesday in Tokyo, Bosworth said that North Korea's work on the new facility makes it impossible to resume negotiations on its nuclear disarmament that stalled last year.

"Needless to say, we regard this development with great seriousness," Bosworth told reporters at a Tokyo hotel. "We do not contemplate resuming negotiations while active programs are under way or while there is a possibility that North Koreans will test another nuclear device or test a missile."

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, however, said the report of the new nuclear installation made an early resumption of talks more necessary.

"We have taken note of the relevant report" on the facility, said the spokesman, Hong Lei. "What is imperative now is to restart six-party talks as soon as possible."

Disagreements between the U.S. and China over how best to coax Pyongyang to the table have occasionally roiled the talks, which also involve, Japan, Russia and South Korea as well as North Korea. Pyongyang had agreed to dismantle its nuclear programs in return for aid and other concessions before the talks foundered last year after North Korea conducted a second nuclear test.

Cooperation between Beijing and Washington is considered key, though, to any progress on the nuclear issue. After talking with the Chinese foreign minister, Bosworth made an apparent nod to that cooperation.

"We strongly believe that a multilateral, diplomatic approach is the only way to realistically resolve these problems," he said.

Despite North Korea's moves, Beijing worries more about instability in its communist neighbor, preferring to offer aid, trade and other incentives as a way to encourage Pyongyang's cooperation.

The new North Korean uranium facility, which Stanford University scientist Siegfried Hecker over the weekend reported that he was taken to, is part of the main Yongbyon atomic complex. Hecker reported that the facility appeared modern and that his North Korean hosts told him that it contained 2,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium.

The North's previously known nuclear program is plutonium-based. At low levels, uranium can be used in power reactors, but at higher levels it can be used in nuclear weapons.

The European crisis: Lessons for Indonesia


Budiono Kusumohamidjojo, Jakarta | Mon, 12/26/2011 6:17 PM A | A | A | - Klipping The Jakarta Post

The European economic crisis was triggered mainly by a flaw in the euro currency mechanism in late 2009, when Greece suddenly came close to a state default. Italy was on the way to follow suit. The ensuing crisis is only part of more complex problems plaguing the old continent and it directly threatens the fabric of the European societies.

Capitalism does not appear to be adequate for rescuing the welfare society. It is beyond doubt that Europe is in need of an overhaul of its social and political structures and institutions.

The trouble shaking Greece and Italy has startled European leaders, as both countries are cradles of European civilization and are in many ways also important contributors to our present world civilization.

There is general acknowledgment that the whole crisis has its cause in the enduring tacit complacency of European societies and their political leaders. Like it or not, they have been oblivious during the pleasant achievement of having rebuilt Europe from the rubble of the Second World War. Economists, sociologists and philosophers alike generally agree that Europe is now actually facing the fact that “it is pay day”.

Only Germany seems to have kept its track, based on its eight centuries old Hansa tradition supported by even older guilds, which combines innovative hard work, producing and trading. Still, even Germany cannot escape being part of a Europe now compelled to undergo a process of reconstruction, and if not deconstruction, of its social-cultural structure and institutions.

The idea of freedom being the philosophical product of the Renaissance and the French Revolution of 1789 has certainly played a decisive role in shaping European civilization. However, any civilization has its own failings. In some respects the idea of freedom and the creativity it stimulates has its price. Grave new problems, beyond human recognition, come to the surface and startle the “sacred” welfare society.

The good thing is that the European summit held recently in Brussels drew important lessons from the precarious situation. Seventeen of the 27 members of the EU have agreed to stringent disciplinary measures to bring the crisis under control. Still, in the depth of the crisis EU leaders also seem capable of reflecting the wisdom of the French Noble Prize winner Albert Camus (1913-1960), who once said something like, “if you are happy, don’t forget yourself, and if you are desperate, don’t kill yourself.”

Indonesia can learn a lot from the European experience and how their leaders are responding. Indonesian leaders should prepare for 2012, as the decisions made in Brussels will ensure a sort of austerity that will be felt in other parts of the world. The European golden economic ball of the 20th century is over.

The seeming anticlimax of the European civilization has obviously dragged the European leaders into resignation and concern about the future of Europe, while they concurrently watch the rise of new global players, particularly in East Asia and South America. And yet, compared to Europe, Indonesia is being confronted with more tremendous challenges not from forgotten achievements, but indeed from home works carried forward from the past, present pressing problems and looming challenges of the future.

Indonesia has neglected many of the problems of its own past. The dangerous thing is that many Indonesians even pretend to have forgotten them. We have yet to work on our nation building of a people inheriting a complex diversity that unites us simply because we are “Indonesia”. This is proven by the endemic violence and conflicts in the various regions.

After a lapse of 13 years of “Reformasi” that put an end to the Soeharto era, we are yet to prove that we can govern ourselves reasonably. To date we are merely working hard to manipulate democracy to the benefit of the “primordial us” rather than the whole nation. We have yet to prove that we are applying democracy to achieve a better life for the masses and justice for everyone.

We cannot afford to be ignorant, especially about the intense competition among nations that will only become fiercer due to the diminishing availability of resources indispensible for the survival of any nation. By the time we have to face the revolutionary world economic situation, we should have put our homework of nation building and governing ourselves democratically in good order.

If Indonesian leaders fail to address these three grand challenges in due time, Indonesians will encounter a crisis that is many times heavier than the one now plaguing Europe, even before the arrival of the mid 21st century.

The writer is senior adviser at the Centre for European Studies, University of Indonesia.

Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Post Comments | Comments (4)

Paolo Scalpini | Tue, 27/12/2011 - 07:12am

Europe’s major problems are:
1) Too much focus on financial gain instead of the real economy: unnatural financial constructs with no real value behind it except for spend-more-than-you-have consumerism have created gigantic bubbles of imaginary wealth as well as debt. This is both a problem of big (inefficient) government as well as a short-sighted badly regulated and greed-driven free-market of mainly financial ‘products’. In the meanwhile there is a decline of productive and creative prowess creating an ugly trade balance.
2) Lack of unity, vision and leadership: the example of the Euro has been given already, but also the absurd austerity competition will not necessarily make things better. When different EU policymakers and their advisors start screwing up the essentials of the real economy as well instead of investing in people’s skills and competiveness, we will be in a greater need of welfare than ever. We cannot afford to not being able to afford social security. The demons of the last century are looming behind the corner in such a case.
3) Demographics
Last but not least, other parts of the world simply do not realize yet in what dire strait they are in. Inefficiency, plain stupidity, selfish materialism and wastefulness are not European monopolies. In fact, while European civilization might have started in Greece, the current downfall has started where it has reached a crest with a major banking bailout. Other parts of the world will indeed be hit much harder, because artificial constructs and ratings, based on for example over-subsidized exports and fake monetary depreciations to severe social instabilities and unsustainable economic growths, will eventually come tumbling down with much worse consequences.

Report Abuse

san san lim | Mon, 26/12/2011 - 23:12pm

it is shown welfare society has failed, it is time we switch to sound money, limited goverment, cut spending by 70%, reduce gov. by 80-90% and let the free market take care of us. I believe we will be more prosper and less corruption. The bigger the goverment the more corrupt the goverment will be, you know "absolute power is equal to absolut corrupt"

Report Abuse

Job | Mon, 26/12/2011 - 22:12pm

A more cogent analysis would focus on the role of the Euro in the European economic crisis. By creating a common currency which no central authority can control, economic problems in 1 member of the Eurozone cannot be contained domestically, with resultant contagion.
The crisis originated in the USA, spreading to Europe by reason of the globalisation of international capital markets. this is an inevitable consequence of free trade and market economics. While capitalism may not be prefect, I am yet to see a workable alternative.

Report Abuse

Tessarajan | Mon, 26/12/2011 - 22:12pm

ACTUAL REASON for EUROPE COLAPSE, due to EUROPE LOST their CAPATILISM because they INVESTED EMERGING MAEKET in CHINA and IMPORT CHEAP PRODUCT from CHINA, That causes EUROPE manufactured PRODUCT LOST BUSSINESS in WORLDWIDE.

Report Abuse

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.

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.

US: China, ASEAN should strengthen Spratlys pact


Jim Gomez, Associated Press, Manila | Mon, 10/04/2010 2:22 PM A | A | A |-Klipping The Jakarta Post

China and the Southeast Asian nations disputing ownership of the Spratlys islands need to turn their 2002 accord into a legally binding code to prevent clashes and keep the vast region open to commerce, the U.S. ambassador said Monday.

China and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations signed a nonbinding edict eight years ago that called for a peaceful resolution of competing claims to ownership of the Spratlys in the South China Sea and a freeze on any steps that could spark fighting.

The United States is concerned that the dispute could hurt access to one of the world's busiest commercial sea lanes. President Barack Obama and ASEAN leaders recently reiterated their support for a peaceful resolution of the disputes, which some fear could spark Asia's next conflict.

"They should develop a code of conduct," U.S. Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. told foreign correspondents in a news forum. "This was agreed to in 2002 and it should be expanded."

Asked if a new Spratlys accord should be legally binding, Thomas replied: "Of course."

He did not specify any feature Washington wanted to see in a new Spratlys accord but added that if asked, the United States would be willing to extend any help when negotiations start to craft such an agreement.

A new code of conduct in the disputed region should "ensure regional stability and freedom of navigation for international commerce," he said.

Responding to another question, Thomas said it was not up to Washington whether claimants should be required to disarm or demobilize forces stationed in the contested region under a new pact.

The disputed territories include the Spratlys, claimed in whole or in part by four ASEAN members - Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Vietnam - plus China and Taiwan. Also contested are Scarborough Shoal, claimed by the Philippines and China, and the Paracel Islands, disputed by China and Vietnam.

Although largely uninhabited, the areas are believed to be sitting atop vast reserves of oil and natural gas. They straddle busy sea lanes and are rich fishing grounds.

Chinese Ambassador Liu Jianchao last week said that China and the other claimants have begun discussions to forge a stronger code of conduct over the Spratlys.

"The document is still in the process of being negotiated," Liu told reporters.

"We are open to different formulas and initiative in preserving peace, prosperity and stability in this region," Liu said, without elaborating.

China and ASEAN members have not specified how they want the 2002 accord to be strengthened or how provisions under a new code of conduct can be made legally enforceable.

Beijing angrily reacted after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an ASEAN regional security forum in Vietnam in July that the peaceful resolution of disputes over the Spratly and Paracel island groups was in the American national interest.

Beijing said Washington was interfering in an Asian regional issue.

The conflicting claims have occasionally erupted into armed confrontation. Chinese forces seized the western Paracel Islands from Vietnam in 1974 and sank three Vietnamese naval vessels in a 1988 sea battle.

What ASEAN can learn from the EU crisis


Rudi Winandoko, Jakarta | Thu, 03/15/2012 9:57 AM A | A | A | - Klipping The Jakarta Post

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU) have very different social and economic characteristics. Based on GDP, the economic power of the EU is more than nine times that of ASEAN. The EU already started its integration in 1958, long before the Bangkok Declaration of ASEAN in 1967. Despite the differences, the current EU debt crisis may give ASEAN valuable lessons for the future.

The Eurozone crisis was triggered by many complex factors. Although economists might argue over the real cause of the crisis, there are at least three interrelated factors that ASEAN can take lessons from.

First is the disparity in economic competitiveness of member countries. It creates trade imbalances. Strong economies, such as Germany, have exports whose value is far exceeds their imports. At the same time, weak economies such as Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIIGS) are in the opposite condition.

PIIGS export products have lost competitiveness in global market, forcing them to rely more on debts to finance their trade deficits. The euro, as a single currency, exacerbates the situation since PIIGS cannot independently devalue the currency to make their products cheaper.

Because of the persistence trade imbalances, weak countries accumulate debts until reaching the point where they cannot pay anymore. Their behavior is driven by the fact that the incentive to collect debts increases along with a decreasing interest rate after they joined the euro.

The second reason is lack of commitment from EU leaders. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty explicitly says that euro members must have a maximum 3 percent of GDP in annual borrowing limits and 60 percent debt-to-GDP ratio to ensure the stability of the Eurozone and prevent reckless fiscal behavior. Years later, everyone seems to forget they ever had such limits.

Needless to say that Greece ignored this restriction, resulting in a budget deficit of 12 percent of GDP and 160 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Some media accused Greece of manipulating Maastricht rule by using complex derivatives and financial engineering. What bothers us are Germany and France, two biggest countries in the eurozone. They also exceeded the minimum rules by making a 4 and 7 percent budget deficit and 83 and 82 percent debt-to-GDP ratio, respectively. It leads us to a perception that the EU leaders cannot maintain their own rules.

Last week, EU member countries, except the UK and Czech Republic, signed a landmark fiscal-compact treaty to improve previous agreements. They made the rules stricter, including granting the right to European Court of Justice to check whether countries implement budget rules properly and creating an automatic mechanism to force countries to correct their budgets. It remains to be proved whether they actually can implement the new rules consistently.

The third reason is the loss of confidence in all euro members. This factor is a common response to all the previous factors. Markets became anxious over whether the euro currency can be maintained and leaders are capable of containing the crisis. The interest-rate indicators show that euro countries have reached the highest point since the inception of the single currency, meaning the public does not have much faith in European economy.

Concern of a worsening crisis has loomed large since rating agencies responded to the crisis by reducing sovereign ratings of several weak countries to below investment grade or “junk” — although critics say that the rating agencies seemed to have been overreacting since they did not give a proper warning before the crisis exploded. ASEAN is the most integrated regional organization in the developing world. It may not take the EU as a role model for its economic development, but undeniably, the eurozone crisis can give an insight on how economic integration should be handled with care.

The main important lesson for ASEAN is that every economic integration should start with efforts to reach the same economic development in each member state. It is important to avoid the economic imbalance that happens in the eurozone. If ASEAN wants to deepen its integration, it must ensure all member states grow economically with the same pace and leave no country behind.

For now, economic imbalance among ASEAN member states may have little influence on ASEAN
development. In ASEAN, trade with external partners is far more significant than intra-ASEAN trade, so member states seem more vulnerable to shock outside ASEAN rather than inside the region. But, in the future, this condition will evolve as ASEAN will be more integrated. Sustainable growth in a region can only be achieved if all member states are in the same stage of development.

Learning from the EU crisis, ASEAN should also create a mechanism to ensure fast and proper response when a crisis happens. The credibility for ASEAN is needed so that markets believe ASEAN can handle a crisis well.

Resisting globalization is like defying the law of gravity. Economic integration is inevitable and trade agreements are necessary to make products competitive in the global market. But the more integrated countries, the more vulnerable they are to another’s internal problems. ASEAN, with the sense of community, should handle its integration carefully so that it can bring more good that harm.

The writer is a diplomat at the Indonesian Foreign Ministry. The opinions expressed here are his own.

Insight: The un-ASEAN way of treating unresolved issues



Sabam Siagian, Jakarta
Insight
Mon, July 16 2012, 6:36 AM

A- A A+

Paper Edition
Page: 2   - Klipping The Jakarta Post



For the first time in its 45-year history, the annual meeting of the ASEAN foreign ministers in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh has failed to adopt an agreed upon final communiqué.



In the past years, this pre-cooked document has served as a summing up of the achieved agreements during the past working year, and an outline of matters that still need to be tackled.



Unresolved issues were not mentioned or included in the final communiqué. Most probably, there was this unflagging optimism as part of the region's social culture that unresolved problems in due time would find their natural solutions. In sum, that is the traditional ASEAN way.



That cozy ASEAN way was shattered in Phnom Penh. The Philippines and Vietnam insisted that their recent clashes with China should be mentioned and included in the final communiqué.



Last April, Chinese and Philippine government ships were in a confrontational mode over the Scarborough Shoal. Chinese maps refer to this string of sandbanks as Huayang.



The strategic issue is the legal ownership of potential reserves of oil and gas — so far unproven — that may be discovered in the exclusive economic zone of Scarborough Shoal (or Huayang), which depends on the national flag that is planted on the string of sandbanks. Philippino Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario was indeed blunt — and very un-ASEAN — when he directly accused the Chair, Cambodia's foreign minister Hor Namhong, of “consistently defending China's interest”.



The Chair has refused to comply with the wishes of the Philippines and Vietnam although the South China Sea issue had been mentioned in the Chairman's (Indonesia) statement after the ASEAN Summit in Bali last November.



Vietnam's clash with China erupted after Chinese vessels interfered with Vietnamese drilling operations in what Hanoi claimed as its exclusive economic zone. The Vietnam case is a very unique example of modern history's vagaries. Vietnam succeeded in overcoming the devastating onslaught unleashed by the US and achieved a strategic victory. Now a united Vietnam is embracing her former staunch enemy. War vessels of the US Seventh Fleet have been festively welcomed as they reentered Cam Ranh Bay. The reason is obvious — Hanoi is hedging its bets against Vietnam's traditional adversary, China. However, simultaneously, Hanoi is maintaining a party-to-party back channel with Beijing, which is a brilliant application of Indonesia's concept of “dynamic equilibrium”.



There are, at least, two approaches in viewing the un-ASEAN events in Phnom Penh. The benign approach would explain the failure to produce the traditional final communiqué at the end of the annual foreign ministers’ meeting as a sign of ASEAN’s maturity. Now, serious differences are not papered over.



The second approach views the events in Phnom Penh more realistically and as events that we should heed seriously. Phnom Penh, this view submits, is a preliminary skirmish that juxtaposes China and the US. We could see a noticeable upward trend of US rebalancing moves toward the Asia-Pacific region: starting with Secretary Hillary Clinton’s statement at the Asian Regional Forum in Hanoi, July 2010, that heralded the US’ commitment to uphold the principle of the freedom of the seas in the East Asia-Pacific region.



US President Barack Obama sounded the clarion call in Canberra when delivering a major speech before the parliament: “The United States is a Pacific nation ... and will remain a Pacific nation.” Never mind that the speech was also meant as a celebration of the 60-year US-Australia Defense Pact, a product of the Cold War era.



Probably, to convince Asian countries that perhaps tend to be skeptical about Washington's seriousness, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as the first speaker at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore early last month clearly outlined the US force restructuring as part of the defense rebalancing: 60 percent of the US naval forces will be assigned in the Asia-Pacific theater and 40 percent in the Atlantic-European theater.



Could it be that the Philippines, ever so receptive and appreciative of the US’ rhetoric and movements, has become emboldened and decided to discard ASEAN’s non-confrontational approach?



Is China now calling the US bluff, of course not openly or confrontationally, but true to Mao Zedong's doctrine of a people's war, just nibbling at the edges, using ASEAN as a safe chess board since Cambodia, as Chair, is a convenient chess piece?



If this diplomatic guerrilla war between Washington and Beijing continues unchecked it could be the beginning of the end for ASEAN. That is why we wholeheartedly support Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa's line of thinking as conveyed to the media. He worked hard up to the last minute to save what still could be saved. He said: “Once the dust settles, we have to ask ourselves, what next? We need to be clear on what is ASEAN's interest in this issue. We [ASEAN] need to assert our centrality.”



In order to safeguard ASEAN’s centrality, we like to suggest that Marty persuade President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to embark on crisis diplomacy. He could convince the President that a direct meeting with Prime Minister Hun Sen in Phnom Penh and President Benigno Aquino III in Manila would contain the crisis to its initial stage before spreading like cancer.



In his dinner speech on the eve of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Yudhoyono presented “An Architecture for Durable Peace in the Asia Pacific”. He said, among other things, “As we strive to build a durable architecture for peace, we now have before us a strategic opportunity to usher in the geopolitics of cooperation”. It is quite obvious that this opportunity should be immediately grasped before ASEAN falls into disarray.



The writer is co-chairman of the Indonesian Forum of (Retired) Ambassadors. He served as ambassador to Australia.

Add Comment Share on vkShare on facebookShare on mymailruMore Sharing Services

Insight: Without unity, no centrality




Rizal Sukma, Jakarta
Insight
Tue, July 17 2012, 7:00 AM

A- A A+

Paper Edition
Page: 2 - Klipping The Jakarta Post


After its success under the chairmanship of Indonesia in 2011, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) now faces a serious setback after the 45th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, ended in a diplomatic disaster, carrying serious strategic consequences for both the grouping and the region.



For the first time since its establishment in August 1967, ASEAN failed to reach a consensus on the issuance of a joint communiqué that has always served as an important hallmark of ASEAN foreign ministers’ gatherings.



The circumstances surrounding the failure are well known. Cambodia, as the 2012 chair of ASEAN, managed to thwart the wishes of the other nine ASEAN members to include a reference to the South China Sea dispute into the final communiqué. Some ASEAN countries and “anonymous” diplomatic sources, as reported by the media, have blamed Cambodia for acting on behalf of China. There are also those who blame China for using Cambodia as its proxy to block consensus and create disunity among ASEAN members.



But, ASEAN and its principle of consensus are also to blame. While in many past cases this principle has served ASEAN well, there have also been times when ASEAN’s credibility was undermined by the principle. Whatever differences it encountered, ASEAN has always managed to find common ground, even on the most difficult issues, such as in the case of Indonesia’s opposition to the weak terms of reference (ToR) for the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) back in 2009. Therefore, the failure at the 45th AMM is unprecedented and an embarrassment for ASEAN.



Indeed, ASEAN should have just gone ahead with issuing the communiqué even without the consent of the ASEAN chair. Unfortunately, however, there is no mechanism within ASEAN to make such an action possible. Moreover, the protocol and tradition within ASEAN prevented that course of action as the chair, which is also the host, usually exercises the role and is given the authority “to represent” and “act on behalf of” the association. In that position, any ASEAN chair, as demonstrated by Cambodia, can exercise a veto power of sorts to the detriment of the larger interests of the grouping.



Therefore, it is time for ASEAN to once again reconsider its rules and procedures in decision making. If ASEAN wants to be a force for the 21st century, it should have left the principle of absolute consensus behind in the 20th century. The principle of ASEAN-X should be revived. Furthermore, ASEAN should not allow this kind of problem to occur again in the future. ASEAN should never allow itself to be held hostage and intimidated by anyone, be it its own chair, any other member state or any extra-regional power in particular.



The failed 45th AMM, while it once again reveals the inner weakness of ASEAN’s decision-making mechanism, also points to two strategic challenges facing ASEAN.



First, the prospect for an amicable negotiation and early conclusion of the Code of Conduct (CoC) on the South China Sea between ASEAN and China is now uncertain. Without ASEAN speaking with one voice on the issue, it will be difficult to reach an agreement with China. China itself, amid differences between Cambodia and other ASEAN countries on the issue, has returned to its previous habit of saying that talks on the CoC can only proceed “when the time is ripe”.



Second, the differences in strategic orientation and interests among ASEAN member states have begun to point to the grouping’s fear: the polarization of ASEAN. It is very hard to believe that such polarization has nothing to do with the differences in ASEAN member states’ relationships with extra-regional powers.



The greatest challenge for ASEAN in this regard is to prevent this emerging polarization from marginalizing ASEAN itself within the emerging major power rivalries in the region.



Failing to address these challenges would mean the end of ASEAN’s centrality and role as the manager of regional order. Worse, it could also mean the beginning of a post-ASEAN regional order where Southeast Asia once again becomes an appendix to great power politics. Indonesia, as the most committed ASEAN member, should step forward and remind ASEAN that without unity, there is no centrality.



If other ASEAN countries do not share Indonesia’s passion for and commitment to ASEAN, then it is indeed time for us to start another round of debate on the merits of a post-ASEAN foreign policy. We have many other important foreign policy agendas to attend to other than just whining and agonizing over ASEAN’s failures.



The writer is executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

Add Comment Share on vkShare on facebookShare on mymailruMore Sharing Services

Monday, July 16, 2012

SBY wants more talks after ASEAN failure




Bagus BT Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Headlines
Tue, July 17 2012, 6:17 AM

A- A A+

Paper Edition
Page: 1 - Klipping The Jakarta Post





(JP/Ricky Yudhistira)

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono expressed his disappointment over Indonesia’s failure to help settle disputes in the South China Sea during the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Ministerial Meeting (AMM).



Yudhoyono held an impromptu press conference at the Presidential Office on Monday, only to express his concerns over the failure of ASEAN members to come up with a communiqué during the AMM in Phnom Penh, Cambodia — the first in the organization’s 45-year history.



“This has never happened since the ASEAN was established. I am disappointed and really concerned, this could lead to misperceptions or false representation of ASEAN. The media has said ASEAN has broken apart and there was no longer unity in the region,” he said.



“I disagree. ASEAN has not broken up and it remains in unity in spite of the ongoing problems that need to be resolved.”



The Presidential Office convened the press conference after Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa briefed Yudhoyono on the fall out from the failed ASEAN meeting.



Indonesia is one of ASEAN’s founding members and handed over the 2012 chairmanship to Cambodia. Yudhoyono had repeatedly expressed his confidence about Indonesia’s growing international influence, including helping to resolve conflicts in the region.



Indonesia has been considered as having significant clout in the region, particularly during its last chairmanship period in 2011.



The country has been seen as one of key players in the democratization process in Myanmar as well as in the settlement of the conflicts on the Cambodia-Thailand border.



When it comes to South China Sea disputes, however, Indonesia, which appears to be playing a mediator role, has faced insurmountable obstacles in trying to reconcile differences among many ASEAN member states.



The 2012 AMM, which wrapped up on July 13, was the first occasion when ASEAN failed to produce a joint communiqué.



“Last year, we managed to help settle Myanmar and Thailand-Cambodia issues and all worked well. This time, the portfolio to handle [the South China Sea] issue has not been managed as expected,” Marty said.



“We had tried to bridge views of different interests. Since the beginning, we realize this would not be without risk. The possibility of not resulting in an immediate outcome was always on the table. Yet staying idle and doing nothing would create much greater risk,” he said.



Although Indonesia is no longer the ASEAN chair, Yudhoyono has made an initiative to play a greater role in the region.



“The absence of mutual views on the South China Sea poses potential disturbances for the region. We can’t be left like this for too long,” he said.



Marty also said that Yudhoyono has instructed him to travel to all ASEAN countries and try to build consensus.



“I was told by the President to continue seeking consensus by meeting and communicating with my ASEAN counterparts one by one in their respective home countries. Tomorrow I will fly to Manila to meet the Philippine foreign minister, then to Hanoi [Vietnam], Phnom Penh [Cambodia], Kuala Lumpur [Malaysia] and Singapore,” he added.



Marty said that conditions could still improve.



“I hope we still can reach a form of mutual understanding on the South China Sea, at least before the upcoming ASEAN Summit in November,” he said.



ASEAN countries, which had been involved in the South China Sea row, including the Philippines, Vietnam and ASEAN chair Cambodia.



The Philippines and Vietnam insisted that their recent clashes with China should be mentioned and included in the final communiqué.



Last April, Chinese and Philippine government ships were in a confrontational mode over the Scarborough Shoal. Chinese maps refer to this string of sandbanks as Huayang.



Cambodia, meanwhile, was considered to be backing China’s interests.



Marty refused to comment when queried about the row and said that the dispute was over details in the communiqué.



“There were indeed some countries which insisted to include details of the disputed bloc in the communiqué while other countries refused to do so,” he said.

ASEAN’s communiqué failure disappoints SBY

ASEAN’s communiqué failure disappoints SBY


Bagus BT Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
World
Mon, July 16 2012, 5:51 PM  - Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+



Susilo Bambang Yuhoyono: (JP/Ricky Yudhistira)

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono expressed his disappointment over the failed Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) communiqué during the newly arranged ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.



“This had never happened since the ASEAN was established. I am disappointed and really concerned,” Yudhoyono told the media on Monday to comment on the ASEAN foreign ministers’ failure to reach a consensus regarding the prolonged South China Sea dispute.



The impromptu press conference was made after Yudhoyono met with Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa at the Presidential Office in the morning to talk about the fallout of the one-week ASEAN Ministerial Meeting.



The summit ended on July 13, for the first time in ASEAN’s 45-year history, with no joint communiqué.



“This could lead to misperceptions or false depictions about ASEAN. The media has said ASEAN was broken and there was no longer unity in the region,” Yudhoyono said.



“I disagree. ASEAN is not shattered and there is no disunity despite existing issues that must be resolved,” he added.



Indonesia is one of ASEAN’s founding members,



Marty said he was called by Yudhoyono and asked to meet the President at the latter’s office immediately after he returned home from Cambodia.



“The President has instructed me to tour some ASEAN cities to meet my counterparts with a hope that we can still reach consensus before the upcoming ASEAN Summit in November at the latest,” Marty said.



Among ASEAN cities, Marty has planned to visit in the near future Manila, the Philippines; Hanoi, Vietnam; Phnom Penh, Cambodia; and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

ASEAN reaches out to LatAm



A- A A+
Paper Edition | Page: 1
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono with Trade Minister Gita Wirjawan (second right), Coordinating Economic Minister Hatta Radjasa (unseen, right) and ASEAN Foundation executive director Makarim Wibisono after his speech opening the ASEAN-Latin Business Forum in Jakarta on Monday. The two-day forum is aimed at improving business cooperation among countries in Southeast Asia and South America. (JP/Jerry Adiguna)President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono with Trade Minister Gita Wirjawan (second right), Coordinating Economic Minister Hatta Radjasa (unseen, right) and ASEAN Foundation executive director Makarim Wibisono after his speech opening the ASEAN-Latin Business Forum in Jakarta on Monday. The two-day forum is aimed at improving business cooperation among countries in Southeast Asia and South America. (JP/Jerry Adiguna)
The biggest gathering of ASEAN, Latin American and Caribbean decision makers kicked off in Jakarta on Monday, with participants pondering the big task of improving connectivity and business confidence between emerging regions.

Despite the sheer geographical distance and limited past interaction between the regions, the participants agreed that the benefits of deepening trade and investment relations would be undeniable at a time when the global economy is shrouded in prolonged crisis in the US and the European Union.

“We cannot ignore the fact that despite encouraging developments in Greece and Spain, the crisis in the eurozone is far from over. The OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] has predicted that the eurozone will contract by 2 percent in 2012,” said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in his keynote speech on the first day of the third ASEAN-Latin Business Forum.

Yudhoyono, who recently returned from trips to Mexico, Brazil and Ecuador, credited participants who had traveled on long flights to Jakarta, saying that their “fatigue and jet lag” were a testament to the spirit of cooperation and mutuality.

The president said that economic dynamism and robust growth in Latin America (LatAm) and Caribbean countries as well as Southeast Asia represented enough incentive to improve trade and investment relations.

According to the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC), Latin America’s collective GDP has reached US$6.87 trillion and is expected to grow by 4.1 percent this year. The combined value of ASEAN currently stands at about $3.36 trillion and is projected to grow at 7.2 percent.

“These two dynamic regions have so much potential for collaboration that we have yet to tap in earnest,” Yudhoyono said, while adding that despite the size of economies and populations, trade between the two regions only made up 2.3 percent of the total value of trade with all global partners.

ASEAN is home to 608 million people, almost equal to the combined population of Latin America and the Caribbean, which is about 578 million.

The President said that improving connectivity was crucial to realizing the market potential of the regions. He also added that other issues pertinent to trade barriers must also be addressed.

HSBC chief economist for India and ASEAN Leif Lybecker Eskesen agreed that connectivity had to be improved and the governments in both regions must also be able to create comfortable climates to boost trade and investment.

“There are some challenges that must be solved like trade barriers, import tariffs and other restrictions, which don’t allow trade and investment to flow freely,” he said.

Citing a HSBC forecast, Eskesen said that by 2050, Brazil and Mexico would be in the top 10 largest economies in the world, while Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand would be in the top 25, followed by Peru and Venezuela in the top 35.

Indonesian Trade Minister Gita Wirjawan said ASEAN, Latin America and Caribbean economies should take plenty of “small big steps” to realize economic potential between the regions. The regions, he said, each had “something sexy” to offer and added that it was left to stakeholders to educate their counterparts.

“We have to do this continuously and diligently. Make no mistake, we are competing with other zones such as the Middle East, India and Pakistan. They are amazing in terms of trade,” he said.

The ASEAN-Latin Business Forum will extend until Tuesday, in which International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director Christine Lagarde is scheduled to address trade ministers and other participants on the state of affairs in the global economic crisis.