RI praised and criticized by Clinton

Bagus BT Saragih, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Headlines | Tue, September 04 2012, 7:28 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 1

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa (left) welcomes US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (right) in the historic Gedung Pancasila in Jakarta on Monday evening. During her one-night stay, Clinton will discuss the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership, and attend engagements on regional and global issues. (JP / Jerry Adiguna)

Visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accomplished her mission to raise the South China Sea issue when meeting with her Indonesian counterpart Marty Natalegawa at the latter’s office on Monday evening.

Clinton’s visit came less than a month after Marty met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Jakarta.

Marty and Clinton discussed numerous regional and global issues, ranging from tension in the South China Sea, which looked to be the main agenda item of the US official, as well as the conflict in Syria, tension on the Korean peninsula and Iran’s nuclear program.

“Our discussions today extended beyond bilateral issues. Like Indonesia’s relations with other key partners in the region, the relations between Indonesia and the US have proven to be a strong contributor to the region’s peace, stability and prosperity,” Marty said in his written statement delivered during a joint press conference.

The conference was delayed by more than an hour due to the two’s prolonged bilateral talks.

Clinton, who began her press statement by expressing condemnation of the suicide bombing in Peshawar that injured American diplomats, said she was grateful to Indonesia’s efforts to restore ASEAN unity after divisions arose over the South China Sea.

Friction among Southeast Asian countries came to the surface following the unprecedented failure to issue a joint communiqué in a recent ASEAN ministerial meeting in Phnom Penh.

Clinton pushed for Indonesia’s strong role in maintaining ASEAN unity to deal with the territorial dispute in the South China Sea.

She also said that the US supported ASEAN’s six-point principle on the issue established after Marty’s shuttle diplomacy with his Southeast Asian counterparts.

Clinton also addressed domestic issues such as intolerant acts, violence against minorities and alleged human rights abuses in Papua.

Clinton used a written statement in the press conference. When responding to a question on the Papua issue asked by a journalist, Clinton also looked to read the written statement.

“We support Papua’s integrity with Indonesia,” she said while adding that human rights violations allegedly committed by Indonesian authorities must be addressed through the fair and transparent rule of law.

Clinton will have a courtesy call meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Tuesday morning before leaving for Beijing.

Meanwhile, according to Reuters, Clinton also called on China and its neighbors in Southeast Asia to move determinedly to draw up a code of conduct to help resolve disputes in the South China Sea and added that they should refrain from threats and coercion, which sent regional tensions skyrocketing recently.

“The United States does not take a position on competing territorial claims over land features, but we believe the nations of the region should work collaboratively together to resolve disputes without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and certainly without the use of force,” she said.

East Asia meeting to redefine the visions of ASEAN+3

Agnes Winarti, Bali Daily, Badung | World | Fri, September 07 2012, 7:26 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 12

The fourth meeting of the East Asia Vision Group II was officially opened on Thursday afternoon to redefine the multilateral cooperation vision among the 10 ASEAN countries and East Asian economy powerhouses Japan, South Korea and China.

“Over a decade has passed since the first batch of the East Asia Vision Group reported its recommendations to the leaders of the ASEAN+3 in 2001. We expect to review where the cooperation of these 10+3 countries is now heading for the future,” Indonesia’s eminent representative Jusuf Wanandi said prior to commencing the fourth meeting of the East Asia Vision Group II in Badung on Thursday.

“We will report our meeting’s latest recommendations to the seventh East Asia Summit in Phnom Penh this November,” said Jusuf.

Among the Group’s most successful implementations of the recommendations in 2001, was the financial mechanism to prevent the reoccurrence of a monetary crisis like the one of 1997 by managing the regional short-term liquidity problems and facilitating the work of other international financial arrangements and organizations like the International Monetary Fund. The mechanism is known as the Chiang Mai Initiatives and takes the form of a multilateral currency swap arrangement among the 10 ASEAN countries and three East Asian nations Japan, China and South Korea.

Starting off as a series of bilateral swap arrangements, the initiative has developed multilaterally into being worth around US$240 billion in total. “It’s been regarded as our most successful implementation, which we expect to further improve both in terms of value and management,” said Jusuf, citing the urgency of not only looking at further cooperation in finance, trade and politics, but also aspects of society, culture, education, health, energy security, food security and environment.

Thailand’s eminent representative Suthad Setboonsarng further suggested: “Previously in 2001, we were just out of the 1997 financial crisis, so our vision was financial mechanism and so forth. But looking forward, we have to look at the financial crisis in Europe, and the United States financial recovery as well.”

He highlighted the fact that the whole Asia region was becoming a world leader in terms of economic size, and thus the region’s role and responsibility had to be redefined.

“Eleven years ago nobody foresaw that China could be this big. Eleven years ago, nobody foresaw that this group of 13 countries could be world leaders in economy. Now, we are in a very different situation. Because we are big, what is our role and responsibility for the world’s future?” Suthad said.

“So we are trying to find peace in this process. Because if we allow every country to move at ease, the chance is there will be a lot of economic conflicts, which then turns into political conflicts. The question is how to come up with a kind of mechanism to work together peacefully, not only among ourselves internally, but among the 13 countries and the rest of the world,” said Suthad. He also pointed out that the East Asia Community would always be a very open region, as opposed to the European Union which was very inward-looking, with almost 70 percent of trade among its member countries.

China’s supporting expert, Wang Yuzhu, agreed with the idea of building a harmonious regional environment for all countries to grow.

“China believes that we should build close relations with our immediate neighbors, including the ASEAN countries, then evolve and expand. We may agree with being a power in East Asia, but we don’t think we are already a power in the world, even in the Asia-Pacific region.”

“Asian countries and European countries are totally different. While EU members have many similarities in terms of development, culture, history, and so on, we Asians are very diverse, but yet we are linked with the same target; we are chasing high standards, high speed prosperity. That means we should work together to build our regional market, to make a better environment for international investment, regional communication.”

“We understand the fear among small countries of being dominated by the rising China. Our economic development should be inclusive to ASEAN countries, which means we will change our consumption and development model, so that we can import more things from other countries and export our investment to other countries. That process has already begun,” Wang said reassuringly.

Australia’s destiny in the Asian Century (Part 1 of 2 )

Kishore Mahbubani, Canberra | Opinion | Fri, September 07 2012, 10:26 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

By the logic of geography, the continent of Australia should have been populated with Asians. Instead, by an accident of history, Australia has been predominantly populated with Westerners. This historical accident is now coming to an end.

The past two centuries of Western domination of world history have been a major historical aberration because from the year 1 to the year 1820, the two largest economies in the world were always Asian (China and India). All historical aberrations come to a natural end. We will return soon to the Asian century, if not the Asian millennium.

The one country that will have to make the most painful adjustment to the Asian century is undoubtedly Australia. As Western power slowly but steadily recedes from Asia, Australia could well be left beached, together with New Zealand, as the sole Western entity in Asia. Today, Australia is naturally clinging on to American power for comfort. The deployment of 2,500 Marines in Darwin recently clearly sent a signal that Australia was counting on American security protection.

Yet American power will also recede steadily. Few Americans and Australians are aware of how quickly the American economy will become number two in the world. IMF statistics show that in PPP terms America had a 25 percent share of the global economy in 1980, while China only had 2.2 percent. By 2016, the American share will decline to 17.6 percent while the Chinese share will rise to 18 percent.

Under these dramatically changed historical circumstances, the biggest mistake that Australia could make is to continue on auto-pilot, clinging to Western or American power as its sole source of security.

A strong desire to remain part of the West is perfectly natural. The Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, explained this desire well in his interview with The Straits Times on July 6. “But by language and institutions and values, Australia is undeniably Western and should not apologize for it,” he said. “It is who we are. It makes us interesting and it makes us valuable to all interlocutors... A parliamentary democracy, an independent judiciary, a free press, a focus on human rights — all derive from the Western tradition. The Asian migrants who come here bringing their cultures and their perspectives like it that way.”

The logic of cultural identity cannot, however, trump hard geopolitical considerations. Let me make a slightly provocative comparison to drive home that point. The West supported the white minority apartheid government throughout the Cold War because it was seen as a necessary bulwark against Soviet expansion in Africa.

However, as soon as the Cold War ended, South Africa lost its strategic usefulness and was quickly abandoned by the West. Their common cultural roots did not factor in the equation. At the same time, to avoid any misunderstanding, let me stress that Australia, unlike apartheid South Africa, does not sit as a “foreign” object in Asia.

It has adapted relatively well over the years to its Asian neighborhood. It enjoys close and friendly relations with many of its Asian neighbors.

Indeed, Australia has many assets in Asia. First, Australia is a member of the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA) together with Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Established in 1971, the FPDA has sought to complement the traditional US bilateral alliances and networks, more recent minilateral arrangements, as well as ASEAN’s operations in promoting peace and stability in Southeast Asia. In so doing, Australia, together with the UK and New Zealand, plays a part in sustaining the Southeast Asian security architecture.

Second, Australia has carried out a number of education and training projects through the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and other government agencies. In fact, AusAID funds the ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Program which helps in the realization of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015.

The program focuses on building the institutional capacity of ASEC, funding critical economic research and policy activities, and implementing projects that help less developed ASEAN member states operationalize elements of the ASEAN Economic Blueprint.

In short, Australia is already playing a pivotal role in raising the quality of education and training among ASEAN member states.

Third, Australia has cultivated close ties with its Asian neighbors, particularly Japan and Indonesia. Japan and Australia have close economic ties, since Japan is Australia’s largest trading partner and a major source of capital investment. In 2007, Australia and Japan started negotiations on a bilateral free trade agreement. Both countries have also cooperated in the areas of culture, tourism, defense and scientific cooperation.

Australia also has generally good ties with Indonesia. Since the independence of Indonesia, both countries have cooperated in the areas of fisheries conservation, law enforcement, and justice. In June 2006, Indonesia and Australia also concluded a security agreement, known as the Lombok Agreement, to provide a framework for the development of the bilateral security relationship.

In 2011-2012, Australia’s assistance to Indonesia was worth an estimated $558 million. Indonesia is Australia’s top recipient of bilateral aid. Both countries also have a healthy trade and economic relationship with two-way trade (merchandise and services) worth $13.8 billion in 2010-11, and two-way investment worth around $5.7 billion in 2010.

The importance of the Australian-Indonesian relationship can be summarized in a 1994 speech by Paul Keating in which he said, “No country is more important to Australia than Indonesia. If we fail to get this relationship right, and nurture and develop it, the whole web of our foreign relations is incomplete. [...] The emergence of the New Order government of president Soeharto, and the stability and prosperity which [it] has brought to [Indonesia], was the single most beneficial strategic development to have affected Australia and its region in the past 30 years.”

The article is an excerpt from a paper recently submitted at a seminar in Canberra, Australia. The writer, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy, National University of Singapore, is former Singapore permanent representative to the United Nations.

Australia’s destiny in the Asian Century (Part 2 of 2)

Kishore Mahbubani, Canberra | Opinion | Sat, September 08 2012, 1:47 PM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

However, there are assets that Australia could take for granted too easily. As a Western power, Australia could more easily establish good relations with its Asian neighbors when Western power was globally dominant. It always helps to be a member of the most successful club in the world.

Hence, Australia’s close links with London initially and Washington DC subsequently were seen to be an asset rather than a liability in the region.

It also helped that Australia, ASEAN, China and the West were on the same side throughout the Cold War from roughly 1950 to 1990. However, the Cold War has long ended.

The new major geopolitical contest will now be, in one way or another, between America and China. Hence, simultaneously, Australia will soon have to make painful choices on both the cultural and geopolitical fronts.

The time has therefore come for Australia to engage in some hard-headed and tough-minded questioning about its security and foreign policies in the coming decades. I cannot emphasize enough that continuing on auto-pilot is not
an option.

As a friend of Australia, I would like to urge it to wake up sooner to the new realities of our world. The earlier Australia makes the adjustments, the less painful they will be.

No one can predict the future, even if we can make reasonable judgments about likely long-term trends. All kinds of geopolitical scenarios could emerge. I suggest some possible geopolitical challenges that could emerge: the Sino-American, the Sino-Indian and the tension between Islam and the West.

Each of these three geopolitical fault lines would pose real challenges to Australia. All would require Australia to make adjustments.

Australia has been blessed with an unexpected but valuable geopolitical buffer: ASEAN. For all its flaws and defects, ASEAN has enhanced Australian security by keeping Southeast Asia at peace (with no refugee spillover onto an empty continent), keeping Asian powers (like China and India) at arms’ length and increasing multilateral webs of cooperation which have created greater geopolitical stability.

One of the biggest geopolitical mistakes Australia made in recent decades was to take ASEAN’s geopolitical success for granted. Even worse, Australia has, from time to time, tried to undermine or bypass ASEAN in its diplomatic initiatives. All these moves demonstrate that Australia has not fully understood how its geopolitical destiny is going to evolve.

One fundamental flaw in Australia’s geopolitical thinking arises from a complacent assumption that Australia will always remain a “middle power” in global rankings. Australia’s inclusion in the G20 has contributed to the illusion that Australia will always remain a middle power.

Few Australians are aware that Australia was only included in the G20 because of relative GNP calculations made by Larry Summers and Paul Martin in 1999. That was when Western power was still at its peak.

As several Asian and other emerging powers grow in economic strength, Australia’s position in the global order will slip slowly and steadily. Soon Australia will no longer be perceived as a middle power.

In my new book, The Great Convergence, I propose a new 7-7-7 formula for reforming the UN Security Council. There will be seven permanent members, seven semi-permanent members taken from the list of the 28 next-most powerful countries in the world, and seven elected members.

To give equal weight to “democratic representation” and “economic weight”, a country’s place in the global ranking is based on its average share of global population and global GNP.

Annex A provides a ranking of the 193 UN member states and the EU. As UN seats are distributed according to a formula for regional representation, Australia does not earn a place among the middle powers in the “Western Europe and Others Group” (WEOG) that it belongs to.

Thus one painful decision that Australia will have to make is when it will leave the “Western Europe and Others Group” (WEOG) in all UN bodies. Australia’s geographical and geopolitical destiny is in Asia. Its participation in the WEOG is the result of a historical anachronism. How much longer will Australia cling on to a historical anachronism?

The unavoidable conclusion, Australia (and New Zealand) have no choice but to move closer to ASEAN. A new “Community of 12”, including the 10 ASEAN countries, Australia and New Zealand, represents the natural geopolitical destiny of Australia. Paul Keating tried to steer Australia in that direction during his Prime Ministership from 1991
to 1996.

Sadly, subsequent Australian Prime Ministers have failed to do so. Many precious geopolitical opportunities were wasted as Australia returned to its traditional historical direction of focusing on the West. More years will be wasted if Australia fails to engage in new thinking.

The article is an excerpt from a paper recently submitted at a seminar in Canberra, Australia. The writer, dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, is a former Singapore permanent representative to the United Nations.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

APEC summit reaches deals

Rendi A. Witular, The Jakarta Post, Vladivostok, Russia | Headlines | Mon, September 10 2012, 10:42 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 1

China, Japan, South Korea and several ASEAN members may not have calmed down over maritime disputes during the prestigious Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

But to the extent of economic deals, there is one to celebrate by the club of 21 member economies, particularly by developed nations.

A concrete outcome of the summit is undoubtedly the historic US-initiated consensus of 54 environmental goods to be included on the list of products subjected to tariff caps of up to 5 percent by 2015.

The goal to draft such a list was first formulated by the World Trade Organization (WTO) back in 2001, but to no avail.

“An important achievement was the adoption of the list of environmental goods. Our effort to implement arrangements and to reduce duties on environmental goods was tough, but at the end of the day we managed to adopt a credible list,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin in a press conference after the end of the APEC summit on Sunday on Russky Island, off the coast of Vladivostok.

“Under the umbrella of the WTO, similar efforts have already been proceeding for over 10 years —
and so far they have brought no results. Meanwhile, we were able to accomplish this list in just a few months, and this list of environmental goods was finalized during the meeting.”

Indonesia, which first strongly opposed the pact, finally agreed to the deal after the US pledged to ease barriers to the importation of the country’s crude palm oil (CPO).

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added Indonesia’s CPO to its blacklist of imported commodities in January this year based on allegations that Indonesia’s CPO emitted more carbon than the agency’s regulations allowed.

“There will be a positive prospect for our CPO in a couple of months. Barriers for the product may be eased, even before 2015. There’ll no longer be any obstruction in the trade of our CPO,” said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in response to the APEC green goods pact.

Since its inception in 1989, APEC has helped reduce tariffs and other barriers to trade across the Asia-Pacific region. Business transaction costs were cut by 5 percent between 2006 and 2010, according to the APEC Secretariat, representing cost savings of close to US$59 billion for business.

APEC leaders also backed Europe’s move to safeguard the euro area, and pledged to refrain from imposing new trade restrictions through 2015.

“The financial markets remain fragile, while high public deficits and debts in some advanced economies are creating strong headwinds to economic recovery globally. The events in Europe are adversely affecting growth in the region,” said the leaders’ joint statement.

“In such circumstances, we are resolved to work collectively to support growth and foster financial stability, and restore confidence.”

Although APEC is designed as an economic framework aimed at liberalizing and integrating trade within the Pacific-Rim region, the forum is often used to help ease tension among its members.

Because any decision in the forum is by nature unbinding, leaders feel more comfortable to attend it, uniting many disputed nations into one forum.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, urged Japan and South Korea to cool their tempers over their territorial disputes during the APEC summit.

“I raised these issues with both of them,” said Clinton after meeting Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

“Their interests really lie in making sure that they lower the temperature and work together in a concerted way to have a calm and restrained approach.”

The leaders of South Korea, Japan and China did not hold any bilateral functions aside from a brief discussion during the leaders’ meeting.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

Shangri-La Dialogue 2012: "Protecting Maritime Freedoms"

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | World | Fri, June 01 2012, 5:20 PM

Klippintg The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Purnomo Yusgiantoro

Minister of Defense of the Republic of Indonesia

Singapore, June 2, 2012

1. It is indeed gratifying for me to find myself here again, participating in this prestigious Shangri-La dialogue. Therefore allow me, first of all, to express my sincere thanks to the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) and its Chief Executive Dr Jo Chipman, for the kind invitation. I would also like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to the Government of Singapore, in particular to good friend Defense Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, for playing, always, excellent host for this important event.

2. My assignment, at this early plenary session, is to speak on the subject of "Protecting Maritime Freedoms". I consider this assignment as highly appropriate, since I represent one of the largest archipelagic or maritime countries in the world. Located at a major international maritime crossroad, around two thirds of our archipelagic territory consists of seas, that also serve as vital means of connectivity among our more than 17,000 islands. Therefore the great importance that we attach to safety of navigation and maritime affairs, both in terms of prosperity and in terms of security, cannot be overstated.

3. Being ourselves a maritime and archipelagic nation, we are fully aware of the great significance of maritime safety and freedom of navigation, which are at the core of maritime freedoms, for the global common good. With the overwhelming portion of the overall movements of goods and merchandises, including food supplies and energy sources, conducted through seas and oceans, there is indeed uncontestable necessity to facilitate the smooth-sailing of maritime transportation. In a sense, maritime safety and freedom of navigation are essential for the dynamism of economies and the prosperity of peoples everywhere. At the same time, maritime freedoms also represent a principle that should inherently ensure security and stability particularly of coastal states.

4. Like the case of other freedoms, for instance free trade or freedoms of expression, the best way to ensure, and at the same time to govern and manage, maritime safety and freedom of navigation is through the rules of law. It is therefore appropriate that the international community has set various norms and regulations •through such international institutions as the International Maritime Organization (IMO). And of course it would also be more than appropriate for me to single-out the most fundamental of them all which is the 1982 United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is not exaggerated to say that UNCLOS 1982 is like an "International Constitution" in the maritime domain, which we expect to be adhered by the international community. In fact, so-called "freedom of navigation" is now highly regulated through various means and international conventions.

5. Indeed, UNCLOS 1982 guarantees that the high seas are open to all states for freedom of navigation, freedom of over flight, freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, freedom to construct artificial islands installation, freedom of fishing and freedom of scientific research. All these freedoms are subject to provisions of UNCLOS 1982 stipulated in various relevant articles. In addition to UNCLOS 1982 rules how such freedoms should be exercised, it also devises particular regimes and arrangements for various maritime areas and zones. It is in this connection that I would like to make a couple of points.

6. The first point that I wish to make pertains to the special regime governing waters among islands of archipelagic states which, in accordance with UNCLOS 1982, fall within the sovereignty of the archipelagic states concerned. UNCLOS 1982 further rules that the archipelagic states shall guarantee the right of transit passage through designated Archipelagic Sea Lanes (ASL). As an archipelagic state Indonesia so far, has fulfilled its obligation to designate 3 (three) major ASLs (spreading from the west to the eastern part of the territory). ASL-I in the west with its branches is for the navigation between the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean through the Karimata and the Sunda Straits, ASL-II located in the central part of the navigation between the Sulawesi Sea and the Indian Ocean through Makassar and Lombok Straits, and the eastern ASL-III with its branches for the navigation between the Timor Sea and Arafura to the Pacific Ocean through the Banda, the Seram and the Moluccas Seas.

7. The process of designating those ASLs was done in close consultation with the neighboring and other interested countries, particularly maritime countries, the relevant international organizations, and accepted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). We have thus duly taken into account the rights and interests of those countries and facilitated their economic and other transit activities. It would therefore be only fair if we also expect those countries to respect our sovereignty and security interests and objectives in exercising their maritime transit activities.

8. Secondly, I would like to address the case of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. On this, I would first of all say, that we are fully aware of their crucially strategic importance, both as a vital link between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, with some 400 ships passing daily, and as one of the world's choking points. We are also mindful of the interests of user countries in the Straits. At the same time, it should be appropriate for user countries to respect the sovereignty and primary responsibility of the littoral states in accordance with the UNCLOS 1982, and do away with any idea to misinterpret maritime freedoms as an internationalization of the Straits. On the basis of UNCLOS 1982 legal provisions, we believe that various cooperations needed could be developed which will advance the interests of the user states, as well as respect the responsibility and address the concerns of the littoral states. In fact we, the littoral states (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand) have already established Cooperative Mechanism with the user states as envisaged by Article 3 of UNCLOS 1982.

9. The next point that I wish to touch upon in the context of protecting maritime freedoms pertain to the South China Sea as a conflict area. Here, I would first quote the self explanatory statement of the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting 2011 saying "Emphasize the importance of regional peace and stability, and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea based on recognized principles of international law including the 1982 UNCLOS". In this regard, I would like to add the statement by President SBY: "In the South China Sea we can assure that the extremely complex overlapping territorial and jurisdictional disputes will take a long time to settle. Given that reality, while waiting for solution of territorial disputes, the next best option is to focus on confidence building to ensure that there is enough predictability among the claimants, including rules of conduct which would help minimize the prospect of conflict escalation". Indeed, although Indonesia is not a disputing claimant, being in the neighborhood we have an unswerving interest in peace and stability in the South China Sea. We always stand ready to facilitate and participate in any collaborative endeavors for the common good and mutual benefit.

10. Let me now make my last point by emphasizing that maritime freedoms and maritime security are like two sides of the same coin. In order to protect maritime freedoms, there is an indispensable need for us to ensure maritime security. In this regard, I would like to reiterate Indonesia's position as stated on several occasions, to really establish a comprehensive maritime security, the sea must be free from the threats of violence, free from navigation hazards, free from natural resources tribulation, and free from law transgression threats.

11. "Free from the threats of violence" means that the sea is free from groups of people who endanger and disrupt maritime activities. This may take the forms of piracy, armed robberies, or terrorism. "Free from navigation hazards" means that the sea is free from the threats posed by geographical and hydrographical bad conditions, or inadequacy of navigation aids, which could endanger the safety of shipping. "Free from natural resources tribulation" means that the sea is free from environmental threats such as marine pollution and other forms of marine ecosystem destructions. "Free from law transgression threats" means that the sea is free from violations of national and international laws, this could include smuggling, human trafficking, illegal fishing, illegal logging, etc.

12. To conclude, let me reaffirm the great importance that we in Indonesia attach to the respect and protection of maritime freedoms as stipulated and regulated in UNCLOS 1982: Yet, we also believe that maritime freedoms are not an end in themselves. So, ultimately the question is how maritime freedoms can bring about security, stability and prosperity to all of us.

13. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Minister of Defense

Purnomo Yusgiantoro

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

China, the United States and ASEAN (Part 2 of 2)

Lee Hsien Loong, Beijing | Opinion | Fri, September 14 2012, 10:02 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

Singapore believes that the US’ continued presence in the region contributes to Asia’s prosperity and security. The US has legitimate long-term interests in Asia, and plays a role in Asia which no other country can.

This is not just because of its military or economic strength, but for historical reasons. In the 60 years since the end of World War II, the US presence has created a peaceful environment which enabled the region to thrive. This is why many Asia-Pacific countries hope that the US continues to contribute to regional peace and stability.

Despite occasional tensions, the US-China relationship has matured. Both sides are maintaining the overall relationship while managing problems big and small, from denuclearizing the Korean peninsula to the Chen Guangcheng incident. Leaders from both sides recognize their major shared interests. The Chinese leadership is able to look beyond immediate and transient bilateral problems and take a long-term perspective. Successive US Presidents have quickly learnt the importance of maintaining a constructive relationship with China, regardless of what was said during their election campaigns. They accept that the US cannot expect to remake China in its own image, much as some Americans would like to.

Thoughtful Americans, both Democrat and Republican, also understand that any attempt to contain China is doomed to fail. US-China relations in the 21st century cannot be compared to ties between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Today, China and the US are profoundly intertwined, and their relationship is stabilized by mutual economic dependence. The US cannot hold China back without hurting itself at the same time. Neither would European or Asian countries join such a misguided effort to contain China.

Besides forging good relations with the US, China also has a strategic interest in a stable and prosperous Asia. A thriving neighborhood will be a valuable partner in China’s development, and a source of investments and raw materials. A tranquil security environment will enable China to focus on its development goals, and not be distracted by regional tensions.

A stable and prosperous Asia requires closer cooperation amongst the stakeholders in the region. Such a framework for regional cooperation is gradually forming. ASEAN is the foundation of this. It anchors the larger regional security architecture including the ASEAN+3 grouping and the East Asia Summit (EAS). At the same time, it is important that Asia does not become a closed bloc. It needs to keep an open architecture and maintain close links across the Pacific with the Northern American and Latin American countries. Hence the significance of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), whose leaders are meeting this weekend in Vladivostok.

These groupings bring Asia-Pacific countries together to discuss and cooperate on many issues, including economic integration, political-security developments, and functional cooperation. They have also paved the way for a network of free trade agreements among themselves.

ASEAN centrality is key to the regional framework. All the major powers are comfortable to let ASEAN take the lead, and to be the fulcrum of the discussions and cooperation. But this requires an ASEAN that is united, effective, and friendly with all the major powers, including China. A divided or discredited ASEAN will lead to a scenario where the member states are forced to choose between major powers, and Southeast Asia becomes a new arena for rivalries and contention. No one wins.

I am happy that China has been engaging ASEAN actively. China is ASEAN’s largest trading partner while ASEAN is China’s third largest trading partner. ASEAN and China have an FTA (free trade arrangements) which was launched in 2000, when Zhu Rongji was Premier.

This bold initiative was motivated not only by economic benefits but also the desire of both sides to forge a strategic partnership. China also cooperates with ASEAN countries on a broad agenda, including infrastructure development (under the ASEAN Connectivity Masterplan), energy, culture and public health. All ASEAN members welcome China’s engagement and are keen to expand our mutually beneficial partnership.

Nevertheless, despite the deepening relations between China and ASEAN, issues will inevitably arise from time to time, either between China and ASEAN as a whole, or between China and individual ASEAN member nations. One such issue is the territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Sovereignty disputes are complex and hard to resolve. No side can easily abandon their claims without high political costs. The many overlapping claims by multiple claimants in the South China Sea are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Hence in Singapore’s view, the involved parties must manage the disputes responsibly.

All sides should avoid escalating tensions or precipitating confrontations that will affect the international standing of the region.

Turning to recent events, the South China Sea is a major issue in the heart of ASEAN’s own region. For ASEAN not to address it would severely damage its credibility. ASEAN must not take sides on the various claims, but it has to take and state a position which is neutral, forward-looking, and encourages the peaceful resolution of issues. The six–point principles on the South China Sea recently proposed by Indonesia does that. ASEAN has accepted these principles. This is a positive development. We also hope that ASEAN and China will start talks on a Code of Conduct soon.

ASEAN and China have wider interests at stake in the South China Sea issue too, besides sovereignty and maritime rights. Many countries are watching us closely. They will read how China deals with difficult bilateral problems with its neighbors as a sign of what China’s rise means for the world. They will scrutinize ASEAN to see if it can deal with difficult issues effectively. ASEAN and China must not allow this isolated issue to affect their overall positive relationship.

The account between China and ASEAN is large and overwhelmingly positive, and should remain so.

The writer is prime minister of Singapore. This article is an excerpt from a lecture recently delivered at the Central Party School of the Communist Party of China in Beijing.