China and the US: What this election could not decide

Tom Plate, Los Angeles | Opinion | Wed, November 07 2012, 11:23 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

America still has much to decide. Among major issues, the US presidential campaign did not — and without comprehensive national review could not — clear up the daunting question of China. The policy differences between the two parties and their candidates, exaggerated for effect, were miniscule in comparison to the questions China raises. The ultimate stakes for America are huge.

At some point a decision should be made on an overriding question that might roughly be put this way: If this planet is in fact big enough for not just one but two superpowers, can’t the US accept that a new Cold War is not inevitable? If so, what should be the optimal Sino-US relationship? What is in the national interest of each side and how large an area is the overlap of the two national interests?

But such calculations are hard to make when Beijing deviates from its “peaceful rising” policy and adopts what might be termed an it’s-our-way-or-the-highway’ attitude that tends to chill the living life out of people. Here’s what I mean:

Look back a bit in time: China awoke from its long sleep (or perhaps tossing-and-turning insomnia) during the reign of (1978-1992) Deng Xiaoping. Very few historians or economists quarrel with the claim that — totalitarian communist as it may still be — this government and its successors raised more millions out of poverty in a relatively short period of time than any other in modern recorded history. No sensible definition of overall human rights can exclude a measure of economic security and opportunity. This deserves respect and recognition: We are talking 1.4 billion mouths to feed, not a mere 315 million!

But let us look forward a bit: instead of applauding China, more and more neighbors are tending to rearm precisely because of China and are looking at Washington to take out a homeowner’s insurance policy for protection.

Many nations in Asia have had territorial disputes with Beijing, but in all cases Beijing says it is in the right and all their neighbors are wrong. But how can this be? How can everyone in Asia be wrong except China?

Consider the absolutely senseless quarrel with Tokyo over a pool of islands known as Diaoyu Dao, if you’re China or Taiwan, or as Senkaku, if you’re not.  Previous Chinese leaders wisely looked the other way and played down the disagreement, on the sensible ground that nothing should stand in the way of China’s economic development.

Japan was becoming both a huge market for China’s low-cost goods and an exporter of many of the quality products it required to develop.

That’s still the basic deal, but sometimes you get the sense of a kind of unwarranted hubris among China’s elite, now meeting to decide its country’s new leadership.

Take the recent newspaper op-ed in which a prominent and respected Chinese diplomat berated the Japanese for their claims on the islands in the scolding manner of a schoolmaster.

Worse yet, Liu Xiaoming, China’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, actually likened Tokyo’s presumption to challenge Beijing’s Diaoyu claim to a brand of Nazi attitude. Harkening back to the aggression that lead to World War II in the Asia, he painted Japan as Asia’s potential Nazi Germany and cited a recent BBC broadcast Nazis: A Warning from History as a warning to us all to “be on guard to prevent the rise of military fascism”.

Liu was referring to Japan, of course, but Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether China’s own human rights history and current record is so impeccable as to qualify Beijing as moral judge of Japan. Any survey of human rights organizations will show them far less critical of Tokyo than they are of Beijing.

It is bizarre. The Chinese ambassador who indicts Japan for allegedly failing to face up to its wartime history of atrocities makes no mention of either China’s Cultural Revolution or the Tiananmen Square horror. Also flatly unmentioned by Liu was the recent United Nations criticism of China’s treatment of Tibetans.

Frustrated by Beijing’s stonewalling, Navi Pillay, the UN’s top human rights official, pointed to the rising cases of self-immolations by Tibetans protesting China’s rule as an indictor of mainland heavy-handedness.  Nothing the UN has said about Japan recently remotely compares to this blast.

Fair-minded Americans can only shake their head and wonder what has gotten into the Chinese.  Maybe their leadership-change process requires top officials to be as finger wagging about Japan as ours requires our own hypocritical politicians to lecture China. Or maybe Beijing is losing sight of what has made its governance credible: economic development.

For the good of China, that needs to continue, and lecturing others on human rights issues (of all things) should stop. And the territorial quarrels need to be hand led by skilled diplomats, not by threats and gunboats.

And, for the good of the United States, a grand reexamination of our relationship with China needs to begin soon.  It’s the most crucial issue of this past presidential campaign not seriously dealt with.


The writer, the distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies, is the author of Conversations with Ban Ki-moon, the latest in the Giants of Asia book series.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

Europe presses Asia to open economies

Sri Wahyuni, The Jakarta Post, Vientiane, laos | Headlines | Wed, November 07 2012, 9:04 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 2

Europe pressed Asian countries on Tuesday to open their economies further and urged China to ramp up domestic demand as it seeks to tap into the faster-growing region and ease the effects of its long-running economic crisis.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said the 49 countries of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) agreed to a “strong rejection of protectionism” at a two-day summit in Vientiane, Laos, Reuters reported.

But European members made no concrete progress on trade deals with Asian counterparts and several leaders voiced concern about the increasing use of non-tariff barriers, as a number of countries seek to raise protective trade walls.

The European Union’s planned free-trade agreement with Japan, for example, has stumbled over the issue of dismantling non-tariff barriers in the Asian country. Free-trade talks with India are also making slow progress.

“It’s very important for all of us to avoid — namely when there are problems in terms of a financial and economic crisis — what could be a temptation for different countries to become more inward-looking,” Barroso said. “The European Union is definitely on the side of those who want more open trade.”

Global policymakers are scrambling to avoid a fresh economic downturn as the 17-member eurozone economy slides toward recession this year and the US heads for a “fiscal cliff” of spending cuts and tax hikes in January.

Falling European demand has been a drag on Asian economic activity this year, obliging governments to step up investment and other spending to stimulate domestic demand.

Some Asian leaders have hinted at frustration with the European financial crisis, urging more decisive action to shore up growth.

“As Europe finds itself in economic difficulties, the Asian economies must step up to the plate and ensure that [they] contribute to the global economy,” said Foreign Minister Marty Natelegawa.

ASEM accounts for more than half the world’s population and trade. Its ninth summit concluded Tuesday with the adoption of the 16-point Vientiane Declaration on strengthening partnership for peace and development.

“ASEM’s leaders shared the view that all ASEM partners would co-exist in peace, eradicate war, refrain from use of force against each other and from direct and indirect interference in internal affairs of each other and resort to peaceful settlement of disputes,” the summit’s chairman, Lao Prime Minister Thongsing Thammavong, stated.

ASEM leaders, according to Thongsing, also agreed to foster cooperation on sustainable development, ensuring a balance between stable economic growth, social development and environmental protection.

“Leaders committed to narrowing the development gaps between ASEM partners, promoting connectivity and creating an environment conducive to steering integration processes,” he said.

Heads of states and governments, including President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, delegates of 20 Asian countries and 29 European countries and the presidents of the European Council, European Commission and the secretary-general of ASEAN attended the summit.

The summit, according to European Council president Herman van Rompuy, discussed in depth the three pillars of ASEM, namely economic, political and sociocultural fields. Economy and trade became the key focus of debate.

“There was no blame game,” said Rompuy, adding that there was a clear sense among members that they were all in the same boat as the global economy had tightly interlinked them.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

ASEAN to study new ties with 6 partners

Linda Yulisman, The Jakarta Post, Vientiane, Laos | Business | Wed, November 07 2012, 10:44 AM

Klipping The Jaqkarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 14

ASEAN says it will study how to implement a proposed economic partnership with its six external partners that might lead to the foundation of world’s largest economic bloc.

The study, which will be launched in February, will follow talks on the partnership that are expected to begin in mid-November, as representatives from ASEAN’s member nations attend several high-level meetings in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

The proposed bloc, dubbed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) or “ASEAN+6” , would integrate ASEAN’s 10 member nations and six partners in the Asia-Pacific region into a single market comprising more than 3 billion people and with a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of around US$17.23 trillion.

The six partners that may join the bloc — Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand — have all signed separate free trade agreements (FTAs) with ASEAN.

The study will refer to the basic analysis compiled by three working groups covering trade in goods, services and investment, Trade Ministry’s international trade cooperation chief Iman Pambagyo said.

“The analysis from each working group was non-binding, meaning that it will be open for further discussion whenever it’s not sufficient,” Iman said on Monday on the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Meeting Summit in Vientiane, Laos.

Apart from determining which sectors should be prioritized, the study will devise a schedule on trade liberalization, when goods or services will be subject to tariff reductions, Iman said.

The RCEP, created by the association’s leaders during the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali in November last year, aims to consolidate FTAs signed between ASEAN and its six dialogue partners to ease trade procedures and boost the flow of trade and investment within the Asia-Pacific region.

Using a principle of open accession, the partnership will welcome any of ASEAN’s six FTA partners, either from the RCEP’s inception or at a later moment. ASEAN will also consider offers of partnerships from nations outside the region.

The trade pact has been called a way for ASEAN to main centrality after several challenges were posed by other regional trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which does not include all 10 ASEAN member nations.

Iman said that Indonesia was currently finalizing its own plan on the possible commitment to a further liberalization in the trade of goods and services.

“There has been indications that in terms of trade in goods, Indonesia can have high commitment for further liberalization up to 95 percent as long as we have longer deadline [for tariff removals],” Iman said, citing ASEAN-China FTA, where both parties are already committed to reduction of import duties to zero percent starting in 2010.

US election and RI’s global role

Pribadi Sutiono, Jakarta | Opinion | Wed, November 07 2012, 11:19 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 6

The people of the United States went to the polls to elect their president on Tuesday. Understanding the recent debates, many believe there will be no major changes in domestic and foreign policies regardless of whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney emerges victorious.

Given the recent history of the US, both candidates were expected to focus on domestic economic policy. For Romney and Obama, the current US economic downturn, the European economic crises and China’s economic rise and downturn are too important to be ignored. Whoever wins the election will spend more time restoring US economic might as well as boosting the world’s economy.

Still, there is a need for Indonesia to understand what US foreign policy will be and what Indonesia will do in the next four years in relation to the superpower.

Some analysts believe that if Romney wins the election, US foreign policy will slightly shift back to its direction during the term of George W. Bush. Romney is more unilateralist and more focused on traditional foreign policy than Obama. He will refocus US foreign policy on the Middle East, US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, on how to “save” Europe from economic disaster, as well as the continuity of its war on terror.

And again, like many other Republican presidents, Romney will not pay great attention to Asia — except for China, Japan and South Korea, unless something bad impedes the implementation of US foreign policy.

Unlike Romney, Obama, will look at Asia and the Pacific with his “pivot” policy. As a discussion at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC noted earlier this year, “The Obama administration has adopted a policy of rebalancing toward Asia and in recent months, has detailed this in military, economic and trade, human rights and diplomatic initiatives. President Obama has personally affirmed that the US will play a leadership role in Asia for many years to come. While this set of policies is not entirely new, it is sufficiently distinctive as a package to warrant examination as to its feasibility and likely impact.”

Recent developments in Asia, especially Southeast Asia, have forced the US to “rebalance” its policy toward Asia. Developments in the South China Sea have prompted the US to think twice about its policy. Now, it would like to involve more countries in the region like Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore, and, for sure, Australia.

These countries are regarded as important allies in the US foreign policy to “contain” China and its Blue Water Navy policy.

In fact, Indonesia could play a greater role in the issue as a “bridge builder”. As President Yudhoyono recently stated in his speech in Wilton Park in London, Indonesia wants to play a mediating role in the South China Sea dispute by proposing common principles and values rather than just procedures and frameworks.

The draft code of conduct for the South China Sea, circulated by Indonesia to ASEAN foreign ministers, proves that Indonesia has opted to play a constructive role by forging a consensus on the management of maritime disputes.

Indonesia can play a major role in other areas, such as relations between Southeast Asia nations and China, India, Japan and South Korea or even Russia. As a non-claimant to the disputes, Indonesia is able to effectively play a part in institutionalizing regional cooperation to face the growing competition and quest for influence between the US and China as well as between the US and Russia.

Another important way in which Indonesia can play a significant role is by helping to promote democracy at the global level. In 2008, the Indonesian Foreign Ministry initiated the Bali Democracy Forum (BDF) as a forum to compare notes and share experiences on democracy in the Asia-Pacific region.

In its fifth year, the BDF has been a prime mover of democratic changes in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa.

The present political change to a more democratic environment in Myanmar is indeed because they believe that democracy cannot be imposed from outside or by outsiders. For a democracy to work properly, its seeds must be planted in the soil of a nation’s life, as in the case of Egypt and Tunisia.

Today’s globalization poses serious challenges to democracies as interdependence among nations deepens. No country, however powerful or resourceful, can alone resolve the problems that do not respect borders. These challenges can only be effectively overcome through strong and democratic global governance, which is unfortunately lacking today.

The BDF should therefore discuss approaches to integrate democratic principles into global governance, especially in managing collective efforts to promote peace and security, economic development, and the universal enjoyment of human rights, in support of the ongoing efforts of global organizations such as the United Nations (on UNSC reform for example) to advance global institutional reforms.

Indonesia is uniquely qualified to offer a perspective on these issues, the US presidential candidates choose to speak about it or not. Now, it depends on whether Indonesia would like to use this opportunity to play more of a major role at the global level or just keep up with business as usual.

The writer, who obtained his Ph.D. from the Victoria University of Wellington, works for the Indonesian Foreign Ministry and is a member of the board of advisors of the Institute for Peace and Democracy. The opinions expressed are personal.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

A strong partnership for peace and prosperity

Herman Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso, Brussels | Opinion | Mon, November 05 2012, 8:58 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

The 9th Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting, ASEM, which will open today in Vientiane, Laos, brings together 51 leaders from Europe and Asia. Sixteen years after the launch in 1996 of this successful forum of dialogue and cooperation, Europe, Asia and the world have changed significantly.

Asian nations have become strong economic players, lifting hundred of millions of people out of poverty, and gaining self-confidence on the world stage.

In Europe, countries from the east and west have joined forces in an enlarged European Union (EU) turning it into the most ambitious and developed political expression of our continent in its history. Globalization, inter-dependence, redistribution of power, pressure over natural resources are among the key trends shaping the 21st century.

Against this scenario, European-Asian relations are therefore today more relevant than ever. It is not surprising that five of the EU’s strategic partners are ASEM participants, with which we meet regularly and at the highest levels, and that on the occasion of the Vientiane Summit we will be visiting Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam and will have numerous bilateral meetings with our fellow Asian leaders.

Building on these dense relations, our discussions in Vientiane in the next two days will concentrate around three key objectives:

First, we need strong, sustainable and inclusive growth. The world economy has undergone its most testing time since the 1930s, following the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2007. The economic and financial pressures in Europe are only one part of a wider set of problems worldwide.

The EU is taking steps needed to reduce public debt, ensure a healthy banking system and lay the foundations for sustained growth and a stable common currency.

But, also others need to do their part. In particular we look to Asian countries to consolidate their public finance, to rebalance their growth model as appropriate and work with us to support a sustained global recovery.

 Second, to foster growth we need to support world trade. This involves not only fostering domestic demand, but, also avoiding protectionism. Asia’s trade with the EU has held up well in the difficult years since 2007, a tribute to the openness of the EU market and our schemes of tariff preferences for developing countries — Generalized System of Preferences and “Everything But Arms”, as well as our efforts in macro-economic stabilization.

However, there is still a huge potential to tap in the bilateral trade between the EU and Asia. The free trade agreements concluded with the Republic of Korea and being negotiated with Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and India, and in the future Japan should help unlock that potential; and we may explore FTAs with other countries.

But, the need to support world trade can also be seen in the commitment against protectionism and veiled trade barriers.

We trust that our Asian partners will remain committed to open economies and to the commonly agreed multilateral trade rules.

Third, we need stability and security and the best way to achieve it is through negotiated solutions and common institutions.

Asia would benefit from stronger institutions to prevent conflict and to tackle non-traditional security threats effectively at regional and global level.

We commend ASEAN for steering the development of wider cooperation initiatives in East Asia in fora such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the East Asia Summit. Being a committed Asian partner, the EU has just acceded this year to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation and is already an active member of the ARF.

We look forward to making a positive contribution to the regional debates and we stand ready to share our own experiences in areas like crisis management, conflict resolution and preventive diplomacy.

The EU brings to Asian partners its world’s largest internal market by value, its partnership as first trading and investing partner and biggest aid donor, as well as its scientific and technical strengths.

As recognized by the recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize, the EU also brings an experience in regional integration and a foreign and security policy aimed at promoting prosperity, peace and stability, together with a system of government based on respect of the rule of law and human rights.

While the economic aspects of our relation have been dominant in the past, the political and security dimension has steadily grown in importance.

The EU is developing broad security dialogues with many Asian countries focusing on issues like combating piracy, terrorism and cybercrime. The EU also assists in the consolidation of democracy, like for example, cooperating with ASEAN to secure peace in Aceh and contributing to the peace process in Mindanao.

Against this background, the forthcoming ASEM Summit will offer an opportunity to address a wide range of issues of mutual interest, to strengthen our cooperation and to launch further joint initiatives.

It will be also the occasion to welcome new colleagues from Bangladesh, Norway and Switzerland. Another sign of the continued attractiveness of ASEM and of strong and close EU-Asia relation.

The EU will look forward to host the next ASEM summit in Brussels in 2014.

Herman Van Rompuy is president of the European Council and José Manuel Barroso is president of the European Commission.

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services

BIODATA


Nama                          : Moenir Ari Soenanda
Tempat /Tgl Lahir        : Nganjuk, 22 Agustus 1955
Jabatan Sekarang       : Wakil Kepala Perwakilan RI, Moskow 
Status Perkawinan      : Menikah, Evi Supiyati ( Isteri ) dan 4 Anak
Alamat                         : Jl. Pendidikan VI Blok J No. 132 Duren Sawit, Jakarta Timur 13440

Pendidikan 

1. 1979 : Sarjana Hukum Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
2. 1981 : Sekolah Staf Dinas Luar Negeri Tingkat Dasar.
3. 1991 : Sekolah Staf Dinas Luar Negeri Tingkat Madya.
4. 1997 : Sekolah Staf/Pimpinan Departemen Luar Negeri.

Pengalaman Kerja

1. 1980            : Masuk Deplu
2. 1981-1982   : Staf Direktorat Perjanjian Internasional /PI.
3. 1982-1984   : Staf Bidang Politik KBRI Brasilia DF.
4. 1988-1991   : Kepala Seksi Perdata, Direktorat PI.
5. 1992-1995   : Kepala Bidang Penerangan KBRI Seoul.
6. 1997-1999   : Kasubdit Polkam, Direktorat PI.
7. 1999-2003   : Kepala Bidang Politik KBRI Paris.
8. 2004-2007   : Kepala Pusat Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Kebijakan Kawasan Asia Pasifik

                         Dan Afrika, BPPK, Kemlu RI

9. 2007-2010   : Konsul Jenderal RI, Penang

10. 2010-2012 : Penasehat Senior, Badan Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Kebijakan (BPPK),

                          Kemlu RI

11. 2012          : Wakil Kepala Perwakilan RI, Moskow
 

CURRICULUM VITAE



Name                                       : Moenir Ari Soenanda
Date and Place of Birth          : Nganjuk, 22 Agustus 1955
Present Position                     : Deputy Chief of Mission, Indonesian Embassy, Moscow

Marital Status                          : Married, Evi Supiyati ( Wife ) and four Children
Address                                   : Jl. Pendidikan VI Blok J No. 132 Duren Sawit, Jakarta Timur 13440.



Educational Background

1. Diponegoro University, Faculty of Law, Majoring on International Law,

    Semarang, Indonesia 1979
2. Junior Foreign Service Course, 1981
3. Mid Career Foreign Service Course, 1991
4. Senior Foreign Service Course. 1989

Professional Experience

1. 1980            : Joined at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. 1981-1982   : Staff at Directorate of Legal and Treaties Affairs.
3. 1982-1984   : Staff at Political Division, Indonesian Embassy in Brasilia DF.
4. 1988-1991   : Head of Civil Law Section at Directorate of Legal and Treaties Affairs.
5. 1992-1995   : Head of Information Division at the Indonesian Embassy, Seoul.
6. 1997-1999   : Deputy Director for Political and Security Affairs, Directorate Legal and Treaties

                          Affairs.
7. 1999-2003   : Head of Political Division at the Indonesian Embassy, Paris.
8. 2004-2007   : Director, Center of Policy Analysis and Development for Asia Pacific and African

                          Region.

9. 2007-2010   : Consul General of the Republic of Indonesia, Penang

10. 2010-2012 : Senior Advisor, Agency for Analysis and Development, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

11. 2012          : Deputy Chief of Mission, Indonesian Embassy, Moscow

ASEAN’s potential roles in intra-state conflict resolution

Awidya Santikajaya, Canberra | Opinion | Mon, November 05 2012, 9:12 AM

Klipping The Jakarta Post

A- A A+

Paper Edition | Page: 7

Many deem the territorial dispute in the South China Sea as the most prominent issue in the upcoming ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh, which is understandable because the event will be followed by the East Asian Summit, where big powers in the Pacific, most notably China and the United States, will take part.

While the South China Sea is obviously “hot”, there is another important development to watch. In the November summit, ASEAN leaders are scheduled to inaugurate the ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR).

Proposed by Indonesia while hosting last year’s summit, the AIPR aims to contribute to research on and policy recommendations for conflict resolution.

The institute will also enhance existing cooperation among ASEAN think tanks and hold workshops or share experiences in conflict resolution. The establishment of the AIPR is a clear indication that the long-standing principle of non-
interference has adapted to the changing situation. ASEAN members now are less reluctant to talk about conflicts, although doing so potentially creates tension and embarrassment.

Among other conflicts, intra-state conflicts remain difficult issues to completely and comprehensively solve. Around the world, there has been slow and steady progress in resolving intra-state conflicts.

According to Croissant and Trinn (2009), domestic conflicts in Asia have increased significantly, while inter-state conflicts have become less significant. In Southeast Asia, intra-state conflicts still persist until now. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, between 2004 and 2007 at least 2,400 people were killed and 4,000 others injured in Southern Thailand.

Recently, conflicts in Myanmar’s Rakhine state have also claimed many lives.

Clearly, the number of causalities provides a rationale for prioritizing efforts to searching for resolution to intra-state conflicts.

To address intra-state conflicts, Southeast Asian nations usually prefer to exercise domestic policies that focus more on security. For the sake of sovereignty, integrity and national dignity, they do not seem eager to give up on the core of their national sovereignty in exchange for international involvement.

Intra-state conflicts are so sensitive that countries in the region usually avoid discussing the conflicts in any international mechanism. In this sense, the “ASEAN way”, characterized by an attitude of non-
interference in the internal affairs of one another, has been widely criticized for prolonging intra-state tensions in Southeast Asia.

The situation has changed in recent years, although there is still a lot of work to do. An adaptation of the non-interference principle, especially in dealing with intra-state conflicts can be observed from two channels: Cross-border democracy and regionalism. Governments are now more careful in handling intra-state conflicts to avoid criticism from the international community, the media and neighboring
countries.

This was the case when ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus (AIPMC) repeatedly sent messages condemning political repression in Myanmar.

A government cannot simply say that intra-state insurgencies are not our business because cross-border civil society groups are now aware and concerned about what is happening in other countries.

At the same time, the countries of Southeast Asia have been fostering deeper and closer levels cooperation by working toward the creation of the ASEAN Community in 2015. That development, to a certain degree, has transformed perceptions of Southeast Asian states toward security norms and the political culture in the region.

The ASEAN Charter, for example, clearly mentions that the purpose of the association is to promote democracy, good governance, rule of law, human rights and freedom (article 1, paragraph 7, the ASEAN Charter). In that regard, intra-state conflicts may be considered a common concern among Southeast Asian nations because unresolved conflicts can endanger regional and global stability.

In the case of the peace process in Aceh, for instance, military observers from ASEAN countries took part in a ceasefire monitoring mission.

Learning from ongoing changes in the “non-interference” principle, the AIPR has modalities and opportunities to contribute to intra-state conflict management, although it is not exclusively designed for intra-state conflicts. The institute should look beyond research and advisory roles with little power to influence policies.

Instead, the AIPR should be involved in policymaking and implementation. In this regard, nevertheless, it should not ambitiously focus on conflict resolution, but on creating suitable conditions for resolution.

One area that the AIPR can work on conflict management is by promoting socioeconomic development in conflict areas, which are mostly economically underdeveloped.

There are subregional initiatives, such as the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) and the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-the Philippines Economic East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP EAGA), but their roles in improving economic conditions and contributing to peace must be greatly advanced and focused.

The AIPR could initiate a “trust fund” from ASEAN members and donors that would epecially be used to direct financing to infrastructure projects in regions, such as Southern Thailand, Papua, Mindanao and Kayin state. Joint investment promotion, empowerment of small and medium enterprises, capacity building and development of centers of excellence in those regions could also be seriously considered.

Another potential project is to promote more people-to-people contacts and exchanges of scholars and local NGO leaders.

In the early stages, focusing on those areas will help the AIPR build important credibility.

The recent signing of the initial peace agreement between the Philippine government and the MILF rebel group is a wake up call for ASEAN leaders to revisit their approach to dealing with intra-state conflicts. In this sense, the AIPR has a lot of opportunities to play a role in contributing to long-lasting peace.

The role of the AIPR, however, can only be beefed up if there is strong political will from ASEAN leaders. ASEAN Secretary-General-designate Le Luong Minh will certainly play a pivotal role in transforming the AIPR into a valuable vehicle for peace and reconciliation in the region.

The writer is a PhD scholar at Australian National University’s Asia Pacific College of Diplomacy (ANU-APCD), Canberra

Add CommentShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services