Ristian Atriandi Supriyanto, Singapore | Thu, 12/08/2011 8:59 AM A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
In his visit to Australia last month, US President Barack Obama announced a plan to station 2,500 US marines in Darwin. Rather than building new bases, the US marines will share the Australian Army’s Robertson Barracks instead.
Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith said the deal also included greater access for US military aircraft to Northern Australia and even expanded ship and submarine visits in Western Australia.
With all eyes still glued to Darwin, talks have also been ongoing to build a joint US-Australian air force and naval base in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Cocos group of two atolls and 27 islands is roughly 600 nautical miles (nm) southwest of the Sunda Strait and only 1,272 kilometers from Jakarta.
The Cocos currently serve as a refueling station for Australia’s P-3C Orion maritime surveillance and anti-submarine aircraft, and soon, its new P-8 Poseidons. The Cocos would certainly provide a better vantage point for the US to monitor and, should it wish to, control Southeast Asia’s vital sea lanes than the Diego Garcia military base, nearly 1,500 nm west of the Cocos.
At the strategic level, this policy could be understood as part of America’s Pacific re-engagement. In a Foreign Policy magazine article, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that “strengthening bilateral military alliances” and “forging a broad-based military presence” would be among the top items on the US Indo-Pacific agenda.
Clearly, the US is both trying to hold China’s military in check and assure regional friends and allies that America is still around. China’s unilateral claims in the South China Sea and its growing assertiveness in enforcing them, make the US more popular among Beijing’s Southeast Asian neighbors. The US, Australia, and India, are also increasingly wary of China’s so-called “string-of-pearls” strategy to forward-deploy its naval assets into the Indian Ocean.
Operationally, Australia makes perfect sense for US military deployment. Unlike Japan, Guam, or Korea, which are located within China’s military operational reach, Australia provides a relatively more stand-off position — neither too close nor too distant.
An Australian international security expert, Alan Dupont, said US forces in Australia would be “out of missile range from China” and Chinese missiles are already believed to target US bases in the western Pacific. Furthermore, Australia also offers operational flexibility for US forces to maneuver across the Indo-Pacific rim.
James Holmes, an associate professor from the US Naval War College said Australia provides “a central position” for US seaborne forces to “swing” between its bases in Japan and Bahrain, while “bypassing the South China Sea, a body of water that would be hotly contested during a shooting war involving China.”
With the facilities in Darwin and the Cocos the US could throttle China. Most crude oil tankers bound for China from the Middle East are simply too large to transit the shallow Malacca Strait. Hence, the deeper Sunda and Lombok Straits provide the most viable alternatives for these tankers to transit — and the US to interdict them.
They are also deep enough for ballistic missile nuclear submarines (SSBN) to transit. China’s new Type 094(Jin)-class SSBNs, currently based in Sanya, Hainan Island, could transit these sea lanes should they be deployed for future deterrence patrols in the Indian Ocean.
However, with US military footprints already widely scattered across the Indo-Pacific rim, one must ask whether adding more American boots on the ground will be better off for regional peace and stability, particularly with China being perceived as the bogeyman. While China’s “string-of-pearls” strategy remains sketchy at best, Washington is already underway crafting its own “necklace” around China’s periphery. And these moves have drawn mixed responses from Southeast Asia.
Vietnam and the Philippines strongly welcomed the idea. Ricky Carandang, Philippine Secretary of Communications, said the American presence is “ultimately a stabilizing force”. Others, like Indonesia, are more cautious. Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the US move could “provoke a reaction and counter-reaction that would create a vicious cycle of tensions and mistrust”. A reaction which many would expect from China.
Although the Chinese Foreign Ministry only gave a modest response by calling the new US military deployment “not appropriate”, it might belie the true extent of China’s anxiety. Indeed, several weeks later, the Chinese Defense Ministry said US military deployment in Asia reflects a “Cold War mentality”. People’s Liberation Army Maj. Gen. Yuo Luan further wrote in the People’s Daily newspaper recently that “the intent [of the US] is very clear, it is aimed at China, to contain China.”
The US Indo-Pacific grand design, therefore, will further confirm China’s suspicions over the US-led containment strategy. Worse, this could set a “China-versus-the-rest” perception on the part of Beijing that is certainly unhelpful in defusing tensions and addressing regional security challenges.
For Indonesia and Southeast Asia in general, such a destabilizing move is certainly not in their interests. Already, Southeast Asian countries themselves are modernizing their militaries with acquisitions ranging from long-range strike aircraft to killer submarines. Before long, it might only need a small incident to spark off a crisis, if not conflict, and should that occur, it is not Australia, but Southeast Asia which would be caught in the cross-fire.
Perhaps a less sensitive approach by America could be through what international relations expert Stephen Walt calls “offshore balancing” — to diplomatically and militarily support regional allies and friends, without adding more military footprints overseas. For example, America could conduct more joint military exercises and training with regional states, or for the latter to acquire sophisticated US military hardware more easily.
Faced with a cash-strapped defense budget and economic woes at home, Washington should see this as an attractive option. This could also allay regional concerns over the presence of foreign military bases in their backyards, for an American presence does not have to come with the presence of Americans.
The writer is a research analyst with the Maritime Security Program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore. The opinions expressed are his own.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Multiculturalism in Southeast Asia
Muhamad Ali, Jakarta | Fri, 12/09/2011 10:25 AM A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
The condition of being culturally diverse is neither uniquely modern nor Western, but as an approach, multiculturalism is quite a modern concept (born in mid-20th century). In Southeast Asia, multiculturalism has become constructed and contested in state and society.
Some refer to the pre-colonial time when cities were a pluralistic melting point of peoples from all over Southeast Asia, depicting the archipelago as one of the crossroads of world civilizations. During the colonial time, British scholar, J.S. Furnivall used “plural societies” to describe Southeast Asian societies, “two or more elements or social orders which live side by side, yet without mingling, in one political unit”.
The colonial policies of assimilation, segregation, transmigration, ethnic categorization, adat-recht (customary law) codification, politics of Islam and regulations have impacted on post-colonial multiculturalism. But networks of Islamic reformism, Hinduization, Buddhist Mahayani and later Theravada propagation, Christianization, Chinese migration and assimilation and other processes have shaped the way in which multiculturalism has taken different forms.
Some of the post-colonial legacies include the category of pribumi (indigenous) and non-pribumi (particularly, Chinese peranakan and totok). The indigenous peoples became masyarakat adat (cultural society), and their religions became “kepercayaan” (belief). Organizational plurality (Sarekat Islam, Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah and so forth) emerged in response to global Islam (including Wahhabism), but also to colonial politics and domestic conditions in Muslim societies.
Throughout the Old Order and the New Order, ideological and cultural rivalries developed. Pancasila, Bhineka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity), the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and the 1945 Constitution have become ties that bind Indonesian citizens across the multicultural spectrum. In terms of language, the use of the Indonesian national language and ethnic languages take turns in terms of priority and usage among some 300 ethnic groups.
In contemporary times, ethno-religious conflicts, religious radicalism and extremism, gender discrimination, globalized theories of clash of civilizations and Westernized assumptions of multiculturalism have become factors for thinking of multiculturalism as a problem, an approach or a solution. In Indonesia, the Free Aceh Movement and its colonial and New Order histories, made Aceh an autonomous region, along with its aspiration for the implementation of Islamic law of its own.
At the same time, regional autonomy gives rise to Islamic bylaws supported by few Islamist parties and secular politicians wanting people’s votes. The problem of Ahmadiyah didn’t exist until there was an Islamic revival involving the established ulema council (MUI) who sought to maintain orthodoxy in response to both internal and external threats, along with secularism, pluralism and liberalism.
The notion of heresy became popularized. The status of lesbians and homosexuals has become controversial too. Multiculturalism became an approach to address attitudes and policies deemed intolerant, discriminatory and unjust to the “marginalized”.
In Malaysia, multiculturalism as an approach and policy is also shaped by pre-colonial and colonial experiences. Ethnicity and religions are mixed (a Malay is one who professes Islam and behaves like a Malay). Islam is the state’s religion while ambiguously allowing religious freedom.
Political parties were constructed along ethnic lines. In response to the Malay-Chinese riots of 1969, The National Front conducted affirmative action through NEP (National Economic Plan) to equalize “backward Malays” so that they could catch up with the Chinese and other educated classes. Malays enjoy constitutional advantages over non-
Malay citizens.
At the same time, Islam remains revivalist, but the UMNO seeks to modernize its character (as in Islam Hadhari). Now the government is promoting OneMalaysia, but tensions remain between ethnicity, religion and citizenship. Progressive movements, such as Sisters in Islam, attempt to be critical of both UMNO and PAS Islamization projects. Others are critical of multiculturalism in the state. In Malaysia, multiculturalism is almost always framed along ethnic lines, with class, gender and religion sometimes present to complicate things.
In Singapore, multiculturalism is defined and promoted in the city-state through a decidedly secular constitution, although religious and communal factors have become increasingly realized by the predominantly Chinese ruling party. Languages (Malay, Chinese, Tamil, English) constitute the primary marker of multicultural policy. The state’s housing policy aims to mix all ethnic groups, but all these are brought into a wider “national, Singaporean culture”. The question “Chinese First” or “Singaporean First” comes to the fore.
The People Action’s Party (PAP)’s ruling prefers “ideological consensus” to boost economic pragmatism, through such policies as “the Religious Harmony Act” (1990), forbidding the use of religion for political ends with penalties for “extremism”, and later through the promotion of basic “Religious Knowledge” (RK) allowing citizens to choose (from seven religions).
These religious policies had the goal of creating interracial harmony. In later developments, realizing the unintended consequences of religious differences in the public sphere, the National Ideology Committee created “shared values”: nation above society, society above self.
Some argue that the shared values are Asian/Eastern values, in opposition to Western values, although such values remain capitalistic. The question remains a tension between individualism and communalism, between West and East, and between multiculturalism and national cohesion.
Thus, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore are highly diverse nations, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, culturally, socially, and politically, but they are diverse in different ways and cope with diversity in different ways.
Multiculturalism is a new way of understanding culture. Culture is not static, so multiculturalism should not imply those diverse cultures are fixed. “Multiculturalism”, as William Connoly states, “embodies within itself a quarrel between the national protection of diverse cultural minorities in the same territory and the pluralization of multiple possibilities of being within and across states.”
There is tension between multiculturalism and universal humanism, between what Charles Taylor calls “Politics of Recognition”, emphasizing the unique identity of an individual or a group (against assimilation), and “Politics of Universalism”, emphasizing the equal dignity of all citizens (no first-class no second-class citizens).
Does the belief that all human beings have dignity necessarily mean that particular cultural identities are suppressed or negated? Can people reconcile between shared values and particular values?
Empirical studies could be important to assess if multicultural discourses and practices are based on solid social premises, not faulty ones. Does support for ethnic diversity foster individual well-being and inter-ethnic cohesion or does it foster tension and conflict? Is multiculturalism understood as the imposition of some cultures on others? Can different peoples have a shared goal of multiculturalism? Is it for the sake of recognition of the diverse values and expressions for their own sake or for the enhancement of the quality of life and learning among all? Does multiculturalism reinforce racial superiority, religious supremacy, and ethno-triumphalism?
Strategies, structural and cultural, can be formulated in each country and they could learn from each other to see the best practices of multiculturalism, considering both commonalities and differences. Multiculturalism operates in both private and public spheres (family, the state, civil society, including NGOs, media and learning institutions).
Multiculturalism concerns how the self relates to others, real or imagined. As an approach, multiculturalism implies willingness to accept possible ways of being and becoming, regardless of ethnicity, race, sexuality, gender and religion, in efforts at creating respectful and critical societies.
The writer is an assistant professor, University of California, Riverside. This piece is an abridged version of his keynote speech at the Regional Workshop on Islam and Multiculturalism in Southeast Asia, held at the Wahid Institute in Jakarta, Dec. 5-7, 2011.
Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Post Comments | Comments (1)
Goldfinger | Fri, 09/12/2011 - 11:12am
Someone should tell the editors of this newspaper that unedited, abridged papers presented at academic conferences by academics have no place on the editorial page. Laziness! The author should have been asked to turn his article into an OpEd, or the editors should have done it themselves. Maybe journalism is more in need than multiculturalism.
Report Abuse
The condition of being culturally diverse is neither uniquely modern nor Western, but as an approach, multiculturalism is quite a modern concept (born in mid-20th century). In Southeast Asia, multiculturalism has become constructed and contested in state and society.
Some refer to the pre-colonial time when cities were a pluralistic melting point of peoples from all over Southeast Asia, depicting the archipelago as one of the crossroads of world civilizations. During the colonial time, British scholar, J.S. Furnivall used “plural societies” to describe Southeast Asian societies, “two or more elements or social orders which live side by side, yet without mingling, in one political unit”.
The colonial policies of assimilation, segregation, transmigration, ethnic categorization, adat-recht (customary law) codification, politics of Islam and regulations have impacted on post-colonial multiculturalism. But networks of Islamic reformism, Hinduization, Buddhist Mahayani and later Theravada propagation, Christianization, Chinese migration and assimilation and other processes have shaped the way in which multiculturalism has taken different forms.
Some of the post-colonial legacies include the category of pribumi (indigenous) and non-pribumi (particularly, Chinese peranakan and totok). The indigenous peoples became masyarakat adat (cultural society), and their religions became “kepercayaan” (belief). Organizational plurality (Sarekat Islam, Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah and so forth) emerged in response to global Islam (including Wahhabism), but also to colonial politics and domestic conditions in Muslim societies.
Throughout the Old Order and the New Order, ideological and cultural rivalries developed. Pancasila, Bhineka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity), the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and the 1945 Constitution have become ties that bind Indonesian citizens across the multicultural spectrum. In terms of language, the use of the Indonesian national language and ethnic languages take turns in terms of priority and usage among some 300 ethnic groups.
In contemporary times, ethno-religious conflicts, religious radicalism and extremism, gender discrimination, globalized theories of clash of civilizations and Westernized assumptions of multiculturalism have become factors for thinking of multiculturalism as a problem, an approach or a solution. In Indonesia, the Free Aceh Movement and its colonial and New Order histories, made Aceh an autonomous region, along with its aspiration for the implementation of Islamic law of its own.
At the same time, regional autonomy gives rise to Islamic bylaws supported by few Islamist parties and secular politicians wanting people’s votes. The problem of Ahmadiyah didn’t exist until there was an Islamic revival involving the established ulema council (MUI) who sought to maintain orthodoxy in response to both internal and external threats, along with secularism, pluralism and liberalism.
The notion of heresy became popularized. The status of lesbians and homosexuals has become controversial too. Multiculturalism became an approach to address attitudes and policies deemed intolerant, discriminatory and unjust to the “marginalized”.
In Malaysia, multiculturalism as an approach and policy is also shaped by pre-colonial and colonial experiences. Ethnicity and religions are mixed (a Malay is one who professes Islam and behaves like a Malay). Islam is the state’s religion while ambiguously allowing religious freedom.
Political parties were constructed along ethnic lines. In response to the Malay-Chinese riots of 1969, The National Front conducted affirmative action through NEP (National Economic Plan) to equalize “backward Malays” so that they could catch up with the Chinese and other educated classes. Malays enjoy constitutional advantages over non-
Malay citizens.
At the same time, Islam remains revivalist, but the UMNO seeks to modernize its character (as in Islam Hadhari). Now the government is promoting OneMalaysia, but tensions remain between ethnicity, religion and citizenship. Progressive movements, such as Sisters in Islam, attempt to be critical of both UMNO and PAS Islamization projects. Others are critical of multiculturalism in the state. In Malaysia, multiculturalism is almost always framed along ethnic lines, with class, gender and religion sometimes present to complicate things.
In Singapore, multiculturalism is defined and promoted in the city-state through a decidedly secular constitution, although religious and communal factors have become increasingly realized by the predominantly Chinese ruling party. Languages (Malay, Chinese, Tamil, English) constitute the primary marker of multicultural policy. The state’s housing policy aims to mix all ethnic groups, but all these are brought into a wider “national, Singaporean culture”. The question “Chinese First” or “Singaporean First” comes to the fore.
The People Action’s Party (PAP)’s ruling prefers “ideological consensus” to boost economic pragmatism, through such policies as “the Religious Harmony Act” (1990), forbidding the use of religion for political ends with penalties for “extremism”, and later through the promotion of basic “Religious Knowledge” (RK) allowing citizens to choose (from seven religions).
These religious policies had the goal of creating interracial harmony. In later developments, realizing the unintended consequences of religious differences in the public sphere, the National Ideology Committee created “shared values”: nation above society, society above self.
Some argue that the shared values are Asian/Eastern values, in opposition to Western values, although such values remain capitalistic. The question remains a tension between individualism and communalism, between West and East, and between multiculturalism and national cohesion.
Thus, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore are highly diverse nations, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, culturally, socially, and politically, but they are diverse in different ways and cope with diversity in different ways.
Multiculturalism is a new way of understanding culture. Culture is not static, so multiculturalism should not imply those diverse cultures are fixed. “Multiculturalism”, as William Connoly states, “embodies within itself a quarrel between the national protection of diverse cultural minorities in the same territory and the pluralization of multiple possibilities of being within and across states.”
There is tension between multiculturalism and universal humanism, between what Charles Taylor calls “Politics of Recognition”, emphasizing the unique identity of an individual or a group (against assimilation), and “Politics of Universalism”, emphasizing the equal dignity of all citizens (no first-class no second-class citizens).
Does the belief that all human beings have dignity necessarily mean that particular cultural identities are suppressed or negated? Can people reconcile between shared values and particular values?
Empirical studies could be important to assess if multicultural discourses and practices are based on solid social premises, not faulty ones. Does support for ethnic diversity foster individual well-being and inter-ethnic cohesion or does it foster tension and conflict? Is multiculturalism understood as the imposition of some cultures on others? Can different peoples have a shared goal of multiculturalism? Is it for the sake of recognition of the diverse values and expressions for their own sake or for the enhancement of the quality of life and learning among all? Does multiculturalism reinforce racial superiority, religious supremacy, and ethno-triumphalism?
Strategies, structural and cultural, can be formulated in each country and they could learn from each other to see the best practices of multiculturalism, considering both commonalities and differences. Multiculturalism operates in both private and public spheres (family, the state, civil society, including NGOs, media and learning institutions).
Multiculturalism concerns how the self relates to others, real or imagined. As an approach, multiculturalism implies willingness to accept possible ways of being and becoming, regardless of ethnicity, race, sexuality, gender and religion, in efforts at creating respectful and critical societies.
The writer is an assistant professor, University of California, Riverside. This piece is an abridged version of his keynote speech at the Regional Workshop on Islam and Multiculturalism in Southeast Asia, held at the Wahid Institute in Jakarta, Dec. 5-7, 2011.
Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Post Comments | Comments (1)
Goldfinger | Fri, 09/12/2011 - 11:12am
Someone should tell the editors of this newspaper that unedited, abridged papers presented at academic conferences by academics have no place on the editorial page. Laziness! The author should have been asked to turn his article into an OpEd, or the editors should have done it themselves. Maybe journalism is more in need than multiculturalism.
Report Abuse
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Both Myanmar and the US should change
P.L.E Priatna, Jakarta | Fri, 12/02/2011 9:26 AM A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, is making a historical visit to Myanmar on Dec. 1-2, 2011. Exactly 50 years after John Foster Dulles went to Burma and just after ASEAN leaders let Myanmar chair ASEAN in 2014, Clinton’s visit should not only help Myanmar make political progress but also create momentum to change the US policy toward Myanmar.
“Every ASEAN member state supports Myanmar’s chairmanship [bid]. But please don’t misunderstand this support to mean that development in Myanmar’s [democracy] is now 100 percent perfect because it isn’t. The process is still ongoing,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said after the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Nusa Dua, Bali, last week (The Jakarta Post, 16/11). This message is important not only for Myanmar, but also the US government.
US President Barack Obama and all leaders gathering in Bali for the East Asia Summit expressed in their EAS chairman’s statement strong support for the current progress in Myanmar.
The leaders welcomed the significant positive development in Myanmar throughout 2011 and underscored the importance of maintaining strong momentum and continued progress.
Clinton’s visit, therefore, should mark strong US-ASEAN and US-Myanmar relations. In the past few months there have been a flurry of visits of US officials to Myanmar, such as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Yun (May 2011), US Senator John McCain (June 2011), US Special Envoy Derek Mitchell (September, October and November 2011) and Michael H. Posner, assistant secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (November 2011).
However, US Congress insisted in September 2011 on extending trade sanctions against Myanmar by one more year in view of the Myanmar government’s continued human rights violations and suppression of political opposition.
This unfair decision will potentially bottleneck efforts to accelerate the new spirit of the US-ASEAN relations.
On Nov. 18, 2011 the National League for Democracy (NLD), the main opposition group, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, decided to register and rejoin the political process.
Not only should Myanmar change, it is fair to say that it is timely for the US also to shift its policy on Myanmar.
The US should lift all kinds of sanctions and economic embargo slapped on the Southeast Asian nation. ASEAN ministers last January in Lombok asked for the withdrawal of sanctions against Myanmar because the isolationist approach was proved to bring no changes to the country. Instead it aggravated the suffering of people there at grassroots levels.
The US should not play out its own agenda in Myanmar simply to satisfy members of Congress. Again this only shows to the world the US’ inconsistency, vested-interests and miscalculations.
“Relations between our two governments will be eased greatly if we see significant progress in these areas [the release of political prisoners, participation by opposition parties in the political life and on conflicts in ethnic areas]… We look forward to being able to play a more active and supportive role in the Burmese people’s aspirations for human rights and democracy … We will need to see some much more concrete steps in order to lift the sanctions,” said Posner, the assistant secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in Yangoon on Nov. 5.
Myanmar has proved its domestic consolidation and gradual political changes. But why doesn’t the US want to lift its sanctions on Myanmar?
The new US engagement policy in the Southeast Asia region must calculate a policy of fairness.
Fairness is the new spirit and supported foundation to win the hearts and minds of the Southeast Asian people. Fair treatment, as against “double standards”, is social capital for the US to utilize in its role in the region.
A superior approach, as expressed through “acting like a colonial master” to dictate its will on others will be no longer be helpful and sounds obsolete.
The US needs a smart, new foreign policy formula. It has to build smart public diplomacy to help accelerate public support in the region.
The US should be highly sensitive to the development of a wider East Asian community, and its policy should not only deal with governments but the people in the region.
People-centered, people-driven and people-oriented ASEAN sends an important message to the world that people in the region have freedom and rights to respond and interpret what is understood as fair and unfair as appropriate to them.
Yes. Myanmar still has a lot of homework to do, but if we want to make things fair enough, the US government should also change its sanction policy.
Lift the sanctions on Myanmar without delay. Retaining this policy will not only undermine the US credibility among ASEAN members, but people in the region as well.
The writer graduated from the University of Indonesia and Monash University, Australia.
Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Post Comments | Comments (2)
fairdinkum | Sun, 04/12/2011 - 09:12am
US has proved time and time again that it will not hesitate to break any agreement when its own selfish interest is at stake.
The native American Indians were among the first to find this out. They then coined the phrase "They speak with forked tongues."
Report Abuse
MMGyi | Sat, 03/12/2011 - 14:12pm
I believe an editorial in the South China Morning Post commented on highly probably ulterior motives of the Myanmar generals in attempting to further fill their coffers if and when sanctions are lifted. When in post 1988 it was declared that open market policy was to be adopted, they were fully prepared with their exclusive so-called Economic Holdings group which has, since the very beginning,monopolized the 'economy' of the country.
Report Abuse
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, is making a historical visit to Myanmar on Dec. 1-2, 2011. Exactly 50 years after John Foster Dulles went to Burma and just after ASEAN leaders let Myanmar chair ASEAN in 2014, Clinton’s visit should not only help Myanmar make political progress but also create momentum to change the US policy toward Myanmar.
“Every ASEAN member state supports Myanmar’s chairmanship [bid]. But please don’t misunderstand this support to mean that development in Myanmar’s [democracy] is now 100 percent perfect because it isn’t. The process is still ongoing,” Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said after the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Nusa Dua, Bali, last week (The Jakarta Post, 16/11). This message is important not only for Myanmar, but also the US government.
US President Barack Obama and all leaders gathering in Bali for the East Asia Summit expressed in their EAS chairman’s statement strong support for the current progress in Myanmar.
The leaders welcomed the significant positive development in Myanmar throughout 2011 and underscored the importance of maintaining strong momentum and continued progress.
Clinton’s visit, therefore, should mark strong US-ASEAN and US-Myanmar relations. In the past few months there have been a flurry of visits of US officials to Myanmar, such as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Yun (May 2011), US Senator John McCain (June 2011), US Special Envoy Derek Mitchell (September, October and November 2011) and Michael H. Posner, assistant secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (November 2011).
However, US Congress insisted in September 2011 on extending trade sanctions against Myanmar by one more year in view of the Myanmar government’s continued human rights violations and suppression of political opposition.
This unfair decision will potentially bottleneck efforts to accelerate the new spirit of the US-ASEAN relations.
On Nov. 18, 2011 the National League for Democracy (NLD), the main opposition group, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, decided to register and rejoin the political process.
Not only should Myanmar change, it is fair to say that it is timely for the US also to shift its policy on Myanmar.
The US should lift all kinds of sanctions and economic embargo slapped on the Southeast Asian nation. ASEAN ministers last January in Lombok asked for the withdrawal of sanctions against Myanmar because the isolationist approach was proved to bring no changes to the country. Instead it aggravated the suffering of people there at grassroots levels.
The US should not play out its own agenda in Myanmar simply to satisfy members of Congress. Again this only shows to the world the US’ inconsistency, vested-interests and miscalculations.
“Relations between our two governments will be eased greatly if we see significant progress in these areas [the release of political prisoners, participation by opposition parties in the political life and on conflicts in ethnic areas]… We look forward to being able to play a more active and supportive role in the Burmese people’s aspirations for human rights and democracy … We will need to see some much more concrete steps in order to lift the sanctions,” said Posner, the assistant secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in Yangoon on Nov. 5.
Myanmar has proved its domestic consolidation and gradual political changes. But why doesn’t the US want to lift its sanctions on Myanmar?
The new US engagement policy in the Southeast Asia region must calculate a policy of fairness.
Fairness is the new spirit and supported foundation to win the hearts and minds of the Southeast Asian people. Fair treatment, as against “double standards”, is social capital for the US to utilize in its role in the region.
A superior approach, as expressed through “acting like a colonial master” to dictate its will on others will be no longer be helpful and sounds obsolete.
The US needs a smart, new foreign policy formula. It has to build smart public diplomacy to help accelerate public support in the region.
The US should be highly sensitive to the development of a wider East Asian community, and its policy should not only deal with governments but the people in the region.
People-centered, people-driven and people-oriented ASEAN sends an important message to the world that people in the region have freedom and rights to respond and interpret what is understood as fair and unfair as appropriate to them.
Yes. Myanmar still has a lot of homework to do, but if we want to make things fair enough, the US government should also change its sanction policy.
Lift the sanctions on Myanmar without delay. Retaining this policy will not only undermine the US credibility among ASEAN members, but people in the region as well.
The writer graduated from the University of Indonesia and Monash University, Australia.
Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Post Comments | Comments (2)
fairdinkum | Sun, 04/12/2011 - 09:12am
US has proved time and time again that it will not hesitate to break any agreement when its own selfish interest is at stake.
The native American Indians were among the first to find this out. They then coined the phrase "They speak with forked tongues."
Report Abuse
MMGyi | Sat, 03/12/2011 - 14:12pm
I believe an editorial in the South China Morning Post commented on highly probably ulterior motives of the Myanmar generals in attempting to further fill their coffers if and when sanctions are lifted. When in post 1988 it was declared that open market policy was to be adopted, they were fully prepared with their exclusive so-called Economic Holdings group which has, since the very beginning,monopolized the 'economy' of the country.
Report Abuse
Thursday, December 1, 2011
ASEAN: The world’s new center of gravity amid the US-China rivalry?
Mira Permatasari, Bandung | Fri, 11/18/2011 8:46 AM A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
For the third time in ASEAN’s history, Bali has been chosen as the place for ASEAN members to enhance the cooperation among themselves and their key partners. During the coming week, ASEAN will try to revitalize what has been gained in order to achieve the so-called ASEAN Community by 2015.
As one of the leading regional organizations in the world, ASEAN has been deemed one of the more stable and peaceful regions compared to others. Designed during the height of the Cold War, ASEAN was not rendered more relevant in every change taking place among the international political constellations. ASEAN’s crowning achievement is that in 44 years it has successfully prevented open warfare among its members and resolved various kinds of conflict and clashes in a peaceful manner.
Nevertheless, there have been many hiccups along its journey to preserve regional peace and stability. Indeed, Southeast Asia cannot avoid its vulnerability to interstate conflicts; but, ASEAN always attempts to find a win-win solution for all conflict parties.
In one of his speeches, former defense minister Juwono Sudarsono emphasized that the world had shifted from the West to the East. His words highlighted the reality that nowadays, international attention is primarily focused toward the Eastern part of the world. Toward China, for its enormous economic development; India, for its rapid growth in industrialization; newly industrialized countries (NICs), such as Japan and South Korea, for their stable economic development; and last but not least, ASEAN for its progressive changes and becoming more united in significant aspects.
It can be argued that ASEAN’s strong posture today has been boosted by its close relationship with its key partners. Having established the ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the East Asian Community, ASEAN has assumed a commanding position in the political-security architecture in the region.
With the current rivalry between the US and China in trying to become the primary powerhouse in today’s world, ASEAN must attempt to be more proactive in playing its role with a broader perspective. At the same time, in the absence of any formal regional arrangement in East Asia among China, Japan, South and North Korea, ASEAN has to take this as a great opportunity to become the center of gravity of all forms of
arrangement in the region.
Some people have said that ASEAN has always been deemed the main vehicle to bring its members and regional neighbors together in seeking greater cooperation.
With the positive gesture made by three of ASEAN’s key partners, the US, Russia and China, in attending the ASEAN Summit this week, ASEAN must be fully aware of its importance and that it is an essential player in today’s world. If necessary, ASEAN may even have to play a little hard to get with great powers like China, the US and Russia.
US President Barack Obama’s arrival at the summit this week proved that the US will not let China stand alone in a dominant position in Asia. Russia shares this view. The world is fully aware that by having a closer relationship between China and ASEAN’s member states through the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA), China is confident enough to challenge the incumbent superpower to collect Asian support.
Indeed, that would increase US suspicions about China’s intentions in Southeast Asia. It is this situation that has generated the US and Russia’s desire to become more involved in ASEAN’s affairs; otherwise, China will take the lead. That is the reason why those two countries have to “buy in” to ASEAN as their entry point, to at least slow down China’s pace in influencing the region.
Given this favorable situation, it is crucial for ASEAN to be more optimistic in gaining a more substantial position in global politics and security. Not only because ASEAN is the pivotal regional organization in East Asia, but also because ASEAN is now incredibly attractive to the great powers.
Once again, in between the great powers’ rivalry, ASEAN has to be opportunistic and take all its chances to become a global player. ASEAN also has to improve the relationships among its member states to establish more peaceful conditions and to eliminate any latent mistrust. ASEAN should seek ways to garner mutual interests among all members to enhance what has been done by ASEAN during the past 44 years.
The spirit of the ASEAN community and a sense of unity and belonging must be revitalized in order to achieve a fully fledged community. It is necessary for ASEAN to be more focused in creating a united entity in the region and then finally step up to the global level. In a speech given during the current summit by the leader of ASEAN’s current chair, Indonesia, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stressed ASEAN had to become a common platform for resolving not only regional problems but also global issues.
The writer is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.
Related News >>
Insight: RI should anticipate looming US-China rivalry
US ‘the lesser evil’ to ASEAN: Malaysian scholar
ASEAN urged to advance women’s rights
ASEAN can persuade China toward CoC negotiation, mediate regional conflicts
Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Comments (10)
JA | Sun, 20/11/2011 - 00:11am
A sliding scale is an economic term, but has another application as well, and even more so, as it is called in human rights, as it has been affecting the entire region, outside the economy. No ID card can undo that.
http://sharejapan.org/id/
Report Abuse
JA | Sun, 20/11/2011 - 00:11am
The US is mainly concerned about the nature of democracy in Myanmar, that has been tolerated in the field of economic cooperation within the Asian compound to not make matters worse for its suppressed, this with the support from China, as it still has happened amid economic growth in the Middle East.
Report Abuse
schicklgruber | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 14:11pm
@RAHIM
you are on top of those people who create
an enemy stereotype but a ridiculous one.
Get over the crusades and move on.
China showed it's military strength
often:Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Russia.
Europe:
can't pay it's bills and the need for cheap
energy is a big problem for decades. And I
doubt if this crisis will ever form a monolithic
superpower which you already assume as a reality.
All you know is the crusades and the holocaust -
which makes you narrow minded. Don't teach
me bogus history lessons as I am aware of the
shortcomings of the culture I live in.
Your idea that any reports on muslim topics
is unjust propaganda to prepare a invasion
of muslim countries is funny. Who is preaching
hate - German media or RAHIM ?
Report Abuse
Rahim | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 12:11pm
The new centre of gravity is not China. China would like to think they are, but in reality, most in the world see China as a threat (probably because they can't seem to do anything diplomatically - they're always so aggresive). As a result, China may grow economically and militarily; but the world will reject this, and China won't be able to sustain itself, and it will collapse again the way it was originally. I encourage the contributor below from Macau to actually think about what China is and what China stands for.
Report Abuse
access_access | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 09:11am
she IS hermann goering's granddaughter after all then; that's why she revels in telling people these days how great those nazis used to be in their halcyon days in any blogs she can find, although those blogs don't feature the might of those nazis and she has what they call a split-personality issue.
Report Abuse
Rahim | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 02:11am
Sorry: there are some spelling mistakes in my comment, but everybody knows what I mean (see below)
Report Abuse
Rahim: THE ANTISIMISM HAS ITS ORIGIN IN EUROPE | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 02:11am
Rahim from Germany: ANTISIMISM HAS ITS ORIGIN IN EUROPE
.
I just want to add 2 or 3 important points: i.e. there were totally (7+1) 8 crusades against Islam. The first Crusade (26.11.1095 – 15.07.1099 = from the call of the Pope till the arrival of Crusaders in Palestine) was successful, all other failed. Now the Western countries are again trying the old tricks and strategies and once again they would fail. The Western culture is based on Crusaders´s mentality. They are not so civilized as you believe.
.
THE TERMINOLOGY “HOLY WAR” DOES NOT EXIST IN ISLAM. The HOLY WAR is the invention of Christians Crusaders of the West. The Journalists in the Western media use it frequently, but in reality they are telling thick plain white lies. They have no compunction at all.
.
They, the Crusaders (the West), killed the Jews (first in Europe and then in Palestine. They started killing the Jews in Worms, Mainz and Trier [all German cities], and in many parts of France), the Greek orthodox Christians, oriental Christians and many Muslims. To be clear: The first victims of the Holy Wars were Jews. The Crusades were the ignition point for the later virulent Anti-Semitism in Europe, though the New Testament contains many examples of Anti-Semitism. THE ANTI-SEMITISM IS NOT THE INVENTION OF MUSLIMS. THE ANTISIMISM HAS ITS ORIGIN IN EUROPE; NOT IN ORIENT. More details in: (1.) James Carroll: Constantine’s SWORD – The Church and the Jews: Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 2001 (2.) Karen Armstrong: Mohammad – Prophet for our Time: Harper Perennial, London, 2006 / 2007.
.
Rahim from Germany: The Antisimitism has its origin in Europe.
Report Abuse
For the third time in ASEAN’s history, Bali has been chosen as the place for ASEAN members to enhance the cooperation among themselves and their key partners. During the coming week, ASEAN will try to revitalize what has been gained in order to achieve the so-called ASEAN Community by 2015.
As one of the leading regional organizations in the world, ASEAN has been deemed one of the more stable and peaceful regions compared to others. Designed during the height of the Cold War, ASEAN was not rendered more relevant in every change taking place among the international political constellations. ASEAN’s crowning achievement is that in 44 years it has successfully prevented open warfare among its members and resolved various kinds of conflict and clashes in a peaceful manner.
Nevertheless, there have been many hiccups along its journey to preserve regional peace and stability. Indeed, Southeast Asia cannot avoid its vulnerability to interstate conflicts; but, ASEAN always attempts to find a win-win solution for all conflict parties.
In one of his speeches, former defense minister Juwono Sudarsono emphasized that the world had shifted from the West to the East. His words highlighted the reality that nowadays, international attention is primarily focused toward the Eastern part of the world. Toward China, for its enormous economic development; India, for its rapid growth in industrialization; newly industrialized countries (NICs), such as Japan and South Korea, for their stable economic development; and last but not least, ASEAN for its progressive changes and becoming more united in significant aspects.
It can be argued that ASEAN’s strong posture today has been boosted by its close relationship with its key partners. Having established the ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the East Asian Community, ASEAN has assumed a commanding position in the political-security architecture in the region.
With the current rivalry between the US and China in trying to become the primary powerhouse in today’s world, ASEAN must attempt to be more proactive in playing its role with a broader perspective. At the same time, in the absence of any formal regional arrangement in East Asia among China, Japan, South and North Korea, ASEAN has to take this as a great opportunity to become the center of gravity of all forms of
arrangement in the region.
Some people have said that ASEAN has always been deemed the main vehicle to bring its members and regional neighbors together in seeking greater cooperation.
With the positive gesture made by three of ASEAN’s key partners, the US, Russia and China, in attending the ASEAN Summit this week, ASEAN must be fully aware of its importance and that it is an essential player in today’s world. If necessary, ASEAN may even have to play a little hard to get with great powers like China, the US and Russia.
US President Barack Obama’s arrival at the summit this week proved that the US will not let China stand alone in a dominant position in Asia. Russia shares this view. The world is fully aware that by having a closer relationship between China and ASEAN’s member states through the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA), China is confident enough to challenge the incumbent superpower to collect Asian support.
Indeed, that would increase US suspicions about China’s intentions in Southeast Asia. It is this situation that has generated the US and Russia’s desire to become more involved in ASEAN’s affairs; otherwise, China will take the lead. That is the reason why those two countries have to “buy in” to ASEAN as their entry point, to at least slow down China’s pace in influencing the region.
Given this favorable situation, it is crucial for ASEAN to be more optimistic in gaining a more substantial position in global politics and security. Not only because ASEAN is the pivotal regional organization in East Asia, but also because ASEAN is now incredibly attractive to the great powers.
Once again, in between the great powers’ rivalry, ASEAN has to be opportunistic and take all its chances to become a global player. ASEAN also has to improve the relationships among its member states to establish more peaceful conditions and to eliminate any latent mistrust. ASEAN should seek ways to garner mutual interests among all members to enhance what has been done by ASEAN during the past 44 years.
The spirit of the ASEAN community and a sense of unity and belonging must be revitalized in order to achieve a fully fledged community. It is necessary for ASEAN to be more focused in creating a united entity in the region and then finally step up to the global level. In a speech given during the current summit by the leader of ASEAN’s current chair, Indonesia, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stressed ASEAN had to become a common platform for resolving not only regional problems but also global issues.
The writer is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.
Related News >>
Insight: RI should anticipate looming US-China rivalry
US ‘the lesser evil’ to ASEAN: Malaysian scholar
ASEAN urged to advance women’s rights
ASEAN can persuade China toward CoC negotiation, mediate regional conflicts
Follow our twitter @jakpost
& our public blog @blogIMO
| | | | | | | | Comments (10)
JA | Sun, 20/11/2011 - 00:11am
A sliding scale is an economic term, but has another application as well, and even more so, as it is called in human rights, as it has been affecting the entire region, outside the economy. No ID card can undo that.
http://sharejapan.org/id/
Report Abuse
JA | Sun, 20/11/2011 - 00:11am
The US is mainly concerned about the nature of democracy in Myanmar, that has been tolerated in the field of economic cooperation within the Asian compound to not make matters worse for its suppressed, this with the support from China, as it still has happened amid economic growth in the Middle East.
Report Abuse
schicklgruber | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 14:11pm
@RAHIM
you are on top of those people who create
an enemy stereotype but a ridiculous one.
Get over the crusades and move on.
China showed it's military strength
often:Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Russia.
Europe:
can't pay it's bills and the need for cheap
energy is a big problem for decades. And I
doubt if this crisis will ever form a monolithic
superpower which you already assume as a reality.
All you know is the crusades and the holocaust -
which makes you narrow minded. Don't teach
me bogus history lessons as I am aware of the
shortcomings of the culture I live in.
Your idea that any reports on muslim topics
is unjust propaganda to prepare a invasion
of muslim countries is funny. Who is preaching
hate - German media or RAHIM ?
Report Abuse
Rahim | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 12:11pm
The new centre of gravity is not China. China would like to think they are, but in reality, most in the world see China as a threat (probably because they can't seem to do anything diplomatically - they're always so aggresive). As a result, China may grow economically and militarily; but the world will reject this, and China won't be able to sustain itself, and it will collapse again the way it was originally. I encourage the contributor below from Macau to actually think about what China is and what China stands for.
Report Abuse
access_access | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 09:11am
she IS hermann goering's granddaughter after all then; that's why she revels in telling people these days how great those nazis used to be in their halcyon days in any blogs she can find, although those blogs don't feature the might of those nazis and she has what they call a split-personality issue.
Report Abuse
Rahim | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 02:11am
Sorry: there are some spelling mistakes in my comment, but everybody knows what I mean (see below)
Report Abuse
Rahim: THE ANTISIMISM HAS ITS ORIGIN IN EUROPE | Sat, 19/11/2011 - 02:11am
Rahim from Germany: ANTISIMISM HAS ITS ORIGIN IN EUROPE
.
I just want to add 2 or 3 important points: i.e. there were totally (7+1) 8 crusades against Islam. The first Crusade (26.11.1095 – 15.07.1099 = from the call of the Pope till the arrival of Crusaders in Palestine) was successful, all other failed. Now the Western countries are again trying the old tricks and strategies and once again they would fail. The Western culture is based on Crusaders´s mentality. They are not so civilized as you believe.
.
THE TERMINOLOGY “HOLY WAR” DOES NOT EXIST IN ISLAM. The HOLY WAR is the invention of Christians Crusaders of the West. The Journalists in the Western media use it frequently, but in reality they are telling thick plain white lies. They have no compunction at all.
.
They, the Crusaders (the West), killed the Jews (first in Europe and then in Palestine. They started killing the Jews in Worms, Mainz and Trier [all German cities], and in many parts of France), the Greek orthodox Christians, oriental Christians and many Muslims. To be clear: The first victims of the Holy Wars were Jews. The Crusades were the ignition point for the later virulent Anti-Semitism in Europe, though the New Testament contains many examples of Anti-Semitism. THE ANTI-SEMITISM IS NOT THE INVENTION OF MUSLIMS. THE ANTISIMISM HAS ITS ORIGIN IN EUROPE; NOT IN ORIENT. More details in: (1.) James Carroll: Constantine’s SWORD – The Church and the Jews: Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 2001 (2.) Karen Armstrong: Mohammad – Prophet for our Time: Harper Perennial, London, 2006 / 2007.
.
Rahim from Germany: The Antisimitism has its origin in Europe.
Report Abuse
ASEAN unity ‘can blunt effects of US-China rivalry’
Mustaqim Adamrah, The Jakarta Post, NUSA DUA, BALI | Sat, 11/19/2011 11:45 AM A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
While rivalry between the US and China can draw ASEAN members into conflict, the grouping’s fate depends on it alone rather than outside powers if it sticks together, the leader of ASEAN says.
ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said he hoped the perception of tension or rivalry would not be “a product of anybody making any arrangements with anyone”.
“I think it’s up to ASEAN, up to ASEAN’s diplomatic finesse to make sure that with all this conflicting and contending agenda … that we will be able in the end to achieve stability, confidence and security for our region,” he told reporters here on Friday.
Several East and Southeast Asian allies of the United States have expressed support for the US’ plan to establish a military base in Darwin, Australia’s northernmost city.
Japan, a US ally, thinks that the planned US military base in Darwin is one way for the US to show its commitment to the region, a senior Japanese government official says.
“This is something that is based on consultation, showing the US’ high attention to contribute to [security in] the region,” deputy cabinet secretary for public affairs Noriyuki Shikata told a press conference on Friday on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit and its related summits.
Japan has irked China with its comment on South China Sea issues, saying it is not an interest only of the claimants — China, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan — but also of everyone else who uses the sea lanes for their merchant vessels to pass through.
But he stopped short of commenting on whether the US’ plan could lead to turning the Southeast Asian region into a battlefield. “It is difficult for me to make a comment because it’s a matter of a third party,” he said.
Meanwhile, current chair of ASEAN, Indonesia, has seemingly softened its stance on the issue, with Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa backtracking on an earlier statement he made on the US’ Darwin plan.
“What I would hate to see is for the agreement to provoke a reaction and counter-reaction that would create a vicious cycle of tensions and mistrust,” he told a press conference on Wednesday in Bali.
However, he softened his stance the next day.
On Thursday, when asked if the US’ Darwin military base plan could provoke further tension in the region, he said: “This must not be seen as something disturbing.”
On Friday, he also said the matter was the US and Australia’s business in their bilateral agreement.
US President Barack Obama said in Australia on Thursday, before jetting to the Asia meetings on Bali, that the US military would expand its Asia-Pacific role despite budget cuts, declaring America was “here to stay” as a Pacific power, Reuters reported.
A first step in extending the US’ military reach in Southeast Asia will see US marines, naval ships and aircraft deployed to northern Australia from 2012. Sharing the same view as Japan, the Philippines said the US’ presence in the region meant an ultimately stabilizing force.
“Given the defense relationship we have [with the US], I think it bolsters our ability to assert our sovereignty over certain areas,” Philippine communications secretary Ricky Carandang said on Thursday on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit.
China has questioned the new US deployment, with a foreign ministry spokesman raising doubts about whether strengthening such alliances helped the region pull together at a time of economic gloom.
While rivalry between the US and China can draw ASEAN members into conflict, the grouping’s fate depends on it alone rather than outside powers if it sticks together, the leader of ASEAN says.
ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said he hoped the perception of tension or rivalry would not be “a product of anybody making any arrangements with anyone”.
“I think it’s up to ASEAN, up to ASEAN’s diplomatic finesse to make sure that with all this conflicting and contending agenda … that we will be able in the end to achieve stability, confidence and security for our region,” he told reporters here on Friday.
Several East and Southeast Asian allies of the United States have expressed support for the US’ plan to establish a military base in Darwin, Australia’s northernmost city.
Japan, a US ally, thinks that the planned US military base in Darwin is one way for the US to show its commitment to the region, a senior Japanese government official says.
“This is something that is based on consultation, showing the US’ high attention to contribute to [security in] the region,” deputy cabinet secretary for public affairs Noriyuki Shikata told a press conference on Friday on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit and its related summits.
Japan has irked China with its comment on South China Sea issues, saying it is not an interest only of the claimants — China, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan — but also of everyone else who uses the sea lanes for their merchant vessels to pass through.
But he stopped short of commenting on whether the US’ plan could lead to turning the Southeast Asian region into a battlefield. “It is difficult for me to make a comment because it’s a matter of a third party,” he said.
Meanwhile, current chair of ASEAN, Indonesia, has seemingly softened its stance on the issue, with Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa backtracking on an earlier statement he made on the US’ Darwin plan.
“What I would hate to see is for the agreement to provoke a reaction and counter-reaction that would create a vicious cycle of tensions and mistrust,” he told a press conference on Wednesday in Bali.
However, he softened his stance the next day.
On Thursday, when asked if the US’ Darwin military base plan could provoke further tension in the region, he said: “This must not be seen as something disturbing.”
On Friday, he also said the matter was the US and Australia’s business in their bilateral agreement.
US President Barack Obama said in Australia on Thursday, before jetting to the Asia meetings on Bali, that the US military would expand its Asia-Pacific role despite budget cuts, declaring America was “here to stay” as a Pacific power, Reuters reported.
A first step in extending the US’ military reach in Southeast Asia will see US marines, naval ships and aircraft deployed to northern Australia from 2012. Sharing the same view as Japan, the Philippines said the US’ presence in the region meant an ultimately stabilizing force.
“Given the defense relationship we have [with the US], I think it bolsters our ability to assert our sovereignty over certain areas,” Philippine communications secretary Ricky Carandang said on Thursday on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit.
China has questioned the new US deployment, with a foreign ministry spokesman raising doubts about whether strengthening such alliances helped the region pull together at a time of economic gloom.
Insight: RI should anticipate looming US-China rivalry
Rizal Sukma, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 12/02/2011 7:35 AM A | A | A |-Klipping the Jakarta post
Strategic rivalry among major powers, realists have long argued, is a “law of nature” in international relations. They may try to avoid such a fate, but the anarchical nature of international politics will eventually force them to engage in a struggle for supremacy. The reason realists say is that great powers will always try to attain a hegemonic position as a means to ensure their security and survival. In other words, realists believe great powers compete because that is just what they do.
Despite all the attempts at promoting cooperative security through various multilateral processes, there are now fears in the region that East Asia may be unable to escape such a realist prognosis. We in the region, especially within ASEAN circles, have worked very hard to ensure that strategic rivalry among major powers would not become a reality.
We have also tried to convince ourselves and others that ASEAN-centered institutions — such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the East Asia Summit (EAS) — serve as the best forums for dialogue. And, we hope that the habit of engaging in dialogue would eventually lead to the establishment of the habit of cooperation among major powers.
However, recent developments in Sino-US relations give us a reason to worry about the future of East Asia. The two major powers seem to be on a path toward strategic rivalry, competing for influence. The US, for example, has begun to undertake several initiatives to deepen its alliance system and military presence in the region. China’s policy toward the region has also heightened the sense that it too is seeking to expand its power projection and influence.
Over the past few years, we have all tried to convince ourselves by believing that Sino-US relations would become more cooperative rather than competitive. The fact that both major powers are so interdependent economically is often cited to support this argument and logic. Here, we often ignore the fact that Sino-US relations can simultaneously be competitive strategically and cooperative economically.
Indonesia should start thinking very hard about how to position itself in such a complex relationship between the US and China. Obviously, leaning to one side is not an option. Indonesia needs and wants both the US and China as friends and partners. For that reason, we would not be happy to see our friends become rivals, competing for influence in our neighborhood.
Indonesia is still of the view that Southeast Asia should be free from any competition among extra-regional powers. We do not wish to see Southeast Asia to become, once again, a theater for great powers’ power games. That was the reason why we, in the mid-1970s, supported the idea of a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). That is also the reason why we have time and again stressed the importance of ASEAN consolidating itself.
Now, as strategic rivalry between the US and China in the region looms large, we can no longer take it for granted that ASEAN will be able to act as a moderating factor. In fact, a Sino-US strategic rivalry has the potential to polarize ASEAN, turning the region once again into a theater for the pursuit of primacy among major powers. For example, differing responses from ASEAN member state to the US’ decision to station its Marines in Darwin, Australia, would highlight once again differences in strategic perceptions of individual member states.
So, what should Indonesia do? First, we should stop pretending that a Sino-US strategic rivalry is unlikely. It is not. Even voices within China, as recently reflected in the editorial of China’s Global Times, believe that “in other countries in Central Asia and Southeast Asia, the contest between the two powers is far from settled” (Nov. 30).
Second, we should stop pretending that the ASEAN-centered multilateral processes are well equipped to address this challenge on their own. They are not. For ASEAN’s normative multilateral framework to function well there is the need for a stable balance of power among the major powers. Hence, a “dynamic equilibrium” within an ASEAN’s multilateral framework — such as the EAS — requires a stable conventional balance of power outside that framework.
The future stability in East Asia requires both an ASEAN-driven multilateral framework and conventional balance of power among the major powers. Indonesia should not pretend that the former can replace the latter. The key challenge for Indonesia, therefore, is how to create and ensure ketahanan regional (regional resilience) by continuously calling for, and work toward, the unity and consolidation of ASEAN.
Only a united and consolidated ASEAN could prevent Southeast Asia from becoming a theater for major-power rivalry. As such, Indonesia and other ASEAN countries should start thinking about the need for some sort of ZOPFAN II as a new platform to address the challenge posed by a Sino-US strategic rivalry.
The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta.
Strategic rivalry among major powers, realists have long argued, is a “law of nature” in international relations. They may try to avoid such a fate, but the anarchical nature of international politics will eventually force them to engage in a struggle for supremacy. The reason realists say is that great powers will always try to attain a hegemonic position as a means to ensure their security and survival. In other words, realists believe great powers compete because that is just what they do.
Despite all the attempts at promoting cooperative security through various multilateral processes, there are now fears in the region that East Asia may be unable to escape such a realist prognosis. We in the region, especially within ASEAN circles, have worked very hard to ensure that strategic rivalry among major powers would not become a reality.
We have also tried to convince ourselves and others that ASEAN-centered institutions — such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the East Asia Summit (EAS) — serve as the best forums for dialogue. And, we hope that the habit of engaging in dialogue would eventually lead to the establishment of the habit of cooperation among major powers.
However, recent developments in Sino-US relations give us a reason to worry about the future of East Asia. The two major powers seem to be on a path toward strategic rivalry, competing for influence. The US, for example, has begun to undertake several initiatives to deepen its alliance system and military presence in the region. China’s policy toward the region has also heightened the sense that it too is seeking to expand its power projection and influence.
Over the past few years, we have all tried to convince ourselves by believing that Sino-US relations would become more cooperative rather than competitive. The fact that both major powers are so interdependent economically is often cited to support this argument and logic. Here, we often ignore the fact that Sino-US relations can simultaneously be competitive strategically and cooperative economically.
Indonesia should start thinking very hard about how to position itself in such a complex relationship between the US and China. Obviously, leaning to one side is not an option. Indonesia needs and wants both the US and China as friends and partners. For that reason, we would not be happy to see our friends become rivals, competing for influence in our neighborhood.
Indonesia is still of the view that Southeast Asia should be free from any competition among extra-regional powers. We do not wish to see Southeast Asia to become, once again, a theater for great powers’ power games. That was the reason why we, in the mid-1970s, supported the idea of a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). That is also the reason why we have time and again stressed the importance of ASEAN consolidating itself.
Now, as strategic rivalry between the US and China in the region looms large, we can no longer take it for granted that ASEAN will be able to act as a moderating factor. In fact, a Sino-US strategic rivalry has the potential to polarize ASEAN, turning the region once again into a theater for the pursuit of primacy among major powers. For example, differing responses from ASEAN member state to the US’ decision to station its Marines in Darwin, Australia, would highlight once again differences in strategic perceptions of individual member states.
So, what should Indonesia do? First, we should stop pretending that a Sino-US strategic rivalry is unlikely. It is not. Even voices within China, as recently reflected in the editorial of China’s Global Times, believe that “in other countries in Central Asia and Southeast Asia, the contest between the two powers is far from settled” (Nov. 30).
Second, we should stop pretending that the ASEAN-centered multilateral processes are well equipped to address this challenge on their own. They are not. For ASEAN’s normative multilateral framework to function well there is the need for a stable balance of power among the major powers. Hence, a “dynamic equilibrium” within an ASEAN’s multilateral framework — such as the EAS — requires a stable conventional balance of power outside that framework.
The future stability in East Asia requires both an ASEAN-driven multilateral framework and conventional balance of power among the major powers. Indonesia should not pretend that the former can replace the latter. The key challenge for Indonesia, therefore, is how to create and ensure ketahanan regional (regional resilience) by continuously calling for, and work toward, the unity and consolidation of ASEAN.
Only a united and consolidated ASEAN could prevent Southeast Asia from becoming a theater for major-power rivalry. As such, Indonesia and other ASEAN countries should start thinking about the need for some sort of ZOPFAN II as a new platform to address the challenge posed by a Sino-US strategic rivalry.
The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)