Four Game-Changing Events That Will Affect Indonesia Into the Next Year

---
Four Game-Changing Events That Will Affect Indonesia Into the Next Year
Yohanes Sulaiman | December 18, 2012

Some of this year's top events which will impact Indonesia in 2013 include the Asean summit, Bo Xilai, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama.

With the end of 2012 (and maybe the end of the world) fast approaching, here are four important international events from this past year that will have profound implications for Indonesia in 2013.

Bo Xilai Saga

The arrest and persecution of Bo Xilai, who was once the party leader of Chongqing and seen as a key candidate for membership of the elite Politburo Standing Committee, caused a major ripple within China but also had international repercussions.

Within China, Bo’s arrest put a glaring spotlight on the massive corruption and power abuse by party officials. It also further decreased the public trust in government, which already took a hit after the officials’ botched handling of the Wenzhou train collision in 2011. That was where two high-speed trains collided, leaving 40 dead and almost 200 injured, and the government ordered the media to write “positive” stories about the accident.

The revelations of Bo’s crimes caused further backroom struggles in the months preceding the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, where the country’s leaders for the coming decade were chosen.

The resulting jitters over the scandal and overall public attention focusing on the case caused Chinese officials to take a much harder line in handling international disputes than they otherwise would. Thus, China took a more belligerent stance over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute between Japan and China and in its South China Sea dispute with — primarily — Vietnam and the Philippines. Now, it has become much harder for China to back down, due to the fear of public repercussions.

It is hoped that the election of Xi Jinping as the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party will allow China to cool the tension but with so many issues already on Xi’s plate, he might be tempted to keep the tension up as a distraction from growing internal problems.

Asean Summit Failure
Despite Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa’s efforts, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was not able to issue a joint declaration at the July summit in Cambodia — a failure that casts a long shadow over the future of Asean.

Not only did the failure to issue the expected joint statement expose the political discord behind the facade of harmony and unison, it also brought into question the commitment of Asean member states to the Asean project. It is now unclear whether the members would put the region’s interests over their own short-term interests, especially in the field of security issues.

The failure also shows Beijing’s growing influence in the region and its willingness to force Cambodia, with whom it has a very close relationship, to advocate its interests to the detriment of Asean unity This allows the United States to continue its policy of increasing its presence in the region to, some say, help contain China.

Brunei, which will assume the chairmanship of Asean next year, will have the unenviable task of trying to patch the broken trust between members, satisfying the competing concerns of Hanoi, Manila, and Phnom Penh, while balancing the interests of the United States and China in the region.

Fall of Sarkozy

Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, might not like each other personally, but they did realize that they both needed each other and were willing to work together to reform both the French and the European economy.

This understanding created the “Merkozy alliance” that further helped calm the jittery market, by giving credibility to any economic decisions made by Brussels, notably the insistence to Greece, Italy and Spain to get their act together. For Merkel, Sarkozy provided the all-important French backing that enabled her to force the three states to reform their economies. At the same time, Sarkozy managed to steer Germany into toning down demands that might be politically unpalatable back home.

Thus, the defeat of Sarkozy in the French presidential election robbed Merkel of a reliable partner and at the same time threatens the important Franco-German unity needed to navigate the European Union further in treacherous economic currents. France is also seen as no longer committed to reforming its dysfunctional economy — hurting its competitiveness — let alone forcing the troubled economies to stick to much-needed reforms.

While Europe might not be as economically important as years ago, it remains a major player in the global economy, and bad news about Europe in 2013 will have global implications.

Obama’s Re-election

The good news about Barack Obama’s re-election as president of the United States, is that the country will surely pay more attention to Asia in the next four years. This means stronger military and economic engagements with Indonesia and its neighbors, and more pressure on China to temper its belligerent stance.

However, Obama’s re-election means that the US is on course to implement the controversial Obamacare health package, which many argue will hurt still-struggling US businesses and US economic growth. With the US no longer able to provide an engine to pull the global economy from its slump, coupled by the systemic weakness of the European Union and the rising concerns about the Chinese economy, 2013 might not be a good year for global economy — and emerging nations like Indonesia.

Be Wary of Foreign Meddlers, Asean

I think the title here is too harsh.... There was a friendly reaction to that, which could be found in the conversation at the end of the article.


---
Be Wary of Foreign Meddlers, Asean
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 23, 2012

Barack Obama’s three-day Southeast Asian trip might have been planned a while ago, but it cannot be denied that the timing was perfect.

The US president’s visit to Thailand, Myanmar, and Cambodia took place in the aftermath of his re-election victory and China’s 18th Party Congress that chose Xi Jinping as the country’s new leader. Even so, the timing reinforces the idea of a pivot that, regardless of the current turmoil in the Middle East or Europe, would focus the gaze of the United States on the Pacific region.

While many US diplomats disclaim the idea of pivot, as noted by Obama in his third debate with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the United States did engage in a pivot. The Pacific region will be the site of rising political and economic power in the future, and thus it is logical that the United States will invest more resources and increase its presence in the region, especially as it also considers itself a Pacific power.

China, of course, is the undeclared competitor in the region, and seen by many US allies in the region as the main threat. Obama’s trip seemed to be calibrated to warn China to temper its ambition. All the countries that he visited were located in an area vulnerable to China’s sway.

For instance, Thaksin Shinawatra, a previous Thai prime minister and brother of the incumbent, was seen as moving Thailand closer to China during his five years as leader to 2006. Myanmar used to be considered a client state of China until it gambled by breaking from China’s orbit and courting the United States. It was richly rewarded through the historic first visit of the US president to the country and much needed investment.

Cambodia, another country seen to be very close to China, was visited due to it holding the chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Obama, as well as raising the issue of human rights with Prime Minister Hun Sen, also raised concerns over the South China Sea dispute, in spite of protests from China.

Not surprisingly, the Philippines took the opportunity of having implicit support from the United States to openly challenge China by disputing Cambodia’s assertion that Southeast Asian leaders “had decided that they will not internationalize the South China Sea from now on.” Close to the end of last week’s 21st Asean Summit, the Philippines was joined by Brunei, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore to dispute the chairman’s draft statement that there was consensus that the South China Sea issue should not be internationalized.

China in turn went into damage control. While Xi declared China’s firmness in safeguarding its sovereignty, he also threw in some carrots, promising that China would encourage more investment in Asean countries, notably in manufacturing, commercial services and new energy. Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra also announced that China had expressed interests in buying Thai agricultural products and expanding investment in infrastructure in Thailand.

The question, however, is whether Asean and especially Indonesia can get its act together in light of undue interference from China and the United States.

It cannot be denied that Asean this year, in spite of some achievements — it managed to start negotiations to create the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the world’s largest trading bloc that will comprise more than three billion people and with a combined gross domestic product of $15 trillion — has taken quite a lot of beatings over the South China Sea issue.

Asean’s unity is in question, and will remain so due to the loose linkages that bind the grouping, making it prone to outside interference. So the association has a lot of homework to do to ensure that it remains relevant beyond economic matters.
---

Contextus

8:05am Nov 24, 2012

Extra-regional powers are most welcome if their balancing efforts help to neutralize the threat of a regional or extra-regional power acting in defiance of international law like China in her geopolitical dreams about the South Chinese Sea; setting limits at an early stage is much more rewarding than appeasement.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

11:25am Nov 24, 2012

@Contextus: Of course the problem here is the diverging interests of ASEAN nations, where ASEAN is more of association of conveniences, rather than a true effort to create a united front against foreign threats. It is almost impossible to set a limit in light of the inability of Asean nations to realize that at this rate, ASEAN is on the golden brick road to nowhere.

slowburner

11:46am Nov 24, 2012

Indonesia isn't developing - it's regressing. Any decent Indonesian I've ever met lives overseas away from the blight of their homeland. And they are embarrassed to be Indonesian. Shameful Indonesia.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

12:18pm Nov 24, 2012

@slowburner: I agree, but what that has anything to do with this article?

jchay

8:23am Nov 27, 2012

How would ASEAN ever be free of interference especially from China and US, when the ASEAN countries are not confident enough in the belief that they will be stronger as one region? That's why each country will never stop flirting to China or US, trying to get extra brownie points for themselves..

thus my point is, ASEAN actually welcomes the meddlers! ;)

jojakarta

11:35am Nov 27, 2012

@slowburner. Your comment has nothing to do with this article. Yes Indonesia is regressing in a way if you are so into pakistanised indonesia, environment overexploitation, economic disparity, minority oppression and the like. I am not embarrassed but yes I do weep and lament this tragedy of ours.

---------
Additional Comments:

A: Hello, just read your Friday Op-ed in the JG, nice article; my main takeaway was that ASEAN needs unity to maintain relevance but I have to disagree some what that China or the US is meddling, I don't think ASEAN operates in a political-economic vacuum so outside interest in this rising region is the new normal. What do you think?

Yohanes Sulaiman:
Thanks for comment. Glad you like it. First though, the title is not mine. It is JG's editor's choice. I really need to start giving them my own title, but I suck in making catchy titles so I delegate that responsibility to them and this is one of few times that I have a facepalm moment

Then again, you are right that I neglect to include that critical paragraph that it is in the interests of both china and US to intervene in the region, putting the article in a more neutral position. Still, the take home point is the same, that as you noted that Asean really needs to get its act together lest it become more and more irrelevant.

But here's the problem that I don't include there and can't really say outloud. Asean is like that by design, to prevent interferences by its own members to each other. Indonesia is especially very adamant about that. Really problematic.

So Asean should be more united, but at the same time, all its members are dragged kicking and screaming toward that. It is like you want a casino but at the same time, you don't want troubles associated with it.

A: All good points; yeah, seems that one of the inherent weakness of ASEAN is that certain blocks or members seek different goals from the org.
Yohanes Sulaiman:
But rather than tackling it, you end up saying that you don't neeed security guard because there's no problem And the more you repeat it, the more you think that your BS is correct. They also don't want security because that means they have to take turn guarding and nonee of them like to either guarding or being ordered to guard.  Thus you got a casino and al Capone next door, but you pretend al Capone is a dominican friar. That, I think what asean is all about

A: I like the analogy! :)

The Silver Lining of a Failed Asean Summit

----
The Silver Lining of a Failed Asean Summit
Yohanes Sulaiman | July 21, 2012

In an Asean first, the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations last week were unable to issue the usual joint communique at the end of their summit. Irreconcilable differences regarding the South China Sea, with diplomats pointing at Cambodia’s unwillingness to embarrass Beijing, were the reasons for the deadlock. 

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said in response: “I think it is utterly irresponsible if we cannot come up with a common statement on South China Sea. This is a time when Asean should be seen to be acting as one, when the rest of the region expects Asean to be acting as one, and that’s why it’s extremely disappointing that so far we have not been able to achieve that.” 

Marty was right to feel disappointed over Asean’s failure. This summit broke the “taboo” that regardless of the debates and acrimony within the summit, by the end of the day, every country will sit down, shake hands and issue a joint communique that papers over the differences and saves face. 

The failure to issue a joint communique this time around can be said to have torn apart the facade of Asean unity. If 10 nations cannot agree on one joint communique that is full of generalities and only mentions that the summit was also discussing the contentious issue of the Scarborough Shoal, then it remains to be seen whether Asean has the political will to push for more drastic (and most likely painful and domestically unpopular) measures that will be needed down the road in forming a stronger union. 

While the Southeast Asian nations have high hopes and plans for the future of the organization, hoping that it can help strengthen their ties and develop common interests, not unlike the European Union, the failure shows that there is still has a long way to go. It also raises another issue: when push comes to shove, can Asean members rely on each other? 

There might just be a silver lining to this fiasco. The inability to issue joint communiques may be seen as normal for future summits. That way, summits will actually be used to bring up difficult issues and force Asean nations to face the most contentious of issues head-on. Controversial decisions may be made, with some nations agreeing and others objecting — something that under the current facade of harmony is impossible. 

The caveat, though, is that all Asean countries must have enough political will to stay together and turn Asean into a binding organization; otherwise, it faces disintegration. Therefore, the Phnom Penh summit should be used for introspection and possibly a great time to think of the future of Asean itself. 

China should also take heed. It may have won this round by using its influence to make sure that Asean chair Cambodia kept the issue of the Scarborough Shoal from the final communique. In the long term, however, China could end up losing the war to win the hearts and minds of the Asean nations. 

Should China’s actions undermine the unity of Asean, the disgruntled Southeast Asian countries might put the blame on China for wrecking the Asean project with its unwelcome interference. That won’t be good news for China’s good relationships with the majority of Southeast Asian countries and its goals in the region. 

--------

serenityjam

10:59pm Jul 21, 2012

Our foreign minister is correct to feel disappointed and remarked that the ASEAN's failure to issue a joint communique is 'utterly irresponsible'.

He must be referring to Cambodia (as chair and host in Phnom Penh) that acted shamelessly to refuse the call of nine other countries to make mention of the crisis at Scarborough Shoal.

ASEAN must resist aggression from a superpower. China has a hidden agenda to control the Southeast Asian region. China is trying to "rewrite" history by telling tales about its alleged proofs of ownership by showing fraudulent maps and imagined conquests of islands in the past by the naval expeditions commissioned by

its dynastic emperors.

Indonesia should be wary because China can do what it is doing to provoke the Philippines on Scarborough Shoal. I am confident that the ASEAN will be restored as one formidable economic bloc and China's intrusion in the ASEAN territorial waters will not succeed. ASEAN, unite!

maspanji

11:35pm Jul 21, 2012

Asean is a noble cause but its vision is fall short due to suspicion among its member states, namely Malaysia - Indonesia, Thailand- Cambodia, Walaysia - Singapore etc. And the only country that the Chinese to reckon with is Vietnam.

DasMonk

12:17pm Jul 22, 2012

Mr Serenityjam. I feel the post frommaspanji is correct, I would go further and say that certainly in Indonesia and Thailand the suspician of its neighbours is fueled by misplaced hateful rhetoric from those who should know better such as politicians

Regarding China's expansionist policies, this will inevietably lead to direct military conflict within the next few years, potentially months

China will aggress and the ASEAN will maintain a non retaliation stance. The president is making his customary loud noise but is devoid of any action. To analyse why we should consider the deals over the last decade whereby we have lost out as a nation, but perhaps not personally

It is with regret that the Philipines best freinds are in North America and when the blood starts to flow it will be they and not us who provide assistance

We dream of being a regional superpower but seem unwilling to take the burden it brings time and time again

Yohanes-Sulaiman

7:45pm Jul 22, 2012

Thank you for your kind comments. I never expected to receive comments on a foreign affairs piece. So glad that I was proved wrong.

I will add that the biggest problem with ASEAN is in the lack of common interests, goals, and visions, especially after the end of the Cold War. While The European Union moved from "anti-Soviet" bloc to creating a common market that could in the end balance against the US and Japan (later China), ASEAN has not really made such rethinking, other than just try to slog around hopefully everything would be all right. That's the unfortunate effect of simply creating an association without trying to strengthen it or to create a common long term interest or goal between all states in the region

Other problem is the fact that ASEAN keeps maintaining the illusion that it has nothing to do with security, while in reality, it is all about security (back then, it was created to keep the Commies out). Thus, the mismatch between the policy and reality

serenityjam

10:16pm Jul 22, 2012

@DasMonk:

Last time I heard our foreign minister Marty Natalegawa went to Manila to spearhead common statement among ASEAN member-nations in lieu of joint communique. It seems, sir, that Indonesia is doing something about China's aggression.

I am happy to hear that. Maybe, as citizens, we should support our government's foreign relations moves. I know that foreign ministers speak rhetorically but underneath those statements they mean business. There is one positive action. Am I glad that our foreign minister is leading the way.

Besides, there is no need to think of going to war. China as a bully must be pressured through world opinion. There is power in the pen. ASEAN member-nations are generally peace-loving people, are we not?

DasMonk

6:51am Jul 23, 2012

Mr Yohanes-Sulaiman

The future failure of ASEAN to remain nothing more than a club is down to several points already outlined, lack of common interest, self interest and suspician among the major listings, nationalist hatred

However convolutly it may well be the China threat that finally draws us together in the same way as the threat of war in Europe banded the nations. The EU was born from the The European Coal and Steel Community with the belief that tied national interests would avert war. It has to date succeeded.

The number one priority is to recognise the threat and as yet all I see in China buying influence and silence around the world. It bodes ill for the region because at some point it will come to conflict. Recent history shows we have sided with Ahmadijah, Gaddiffi and Assad and promoted a non intervention model. When the Chinese start firing one cannot help thinking we will side with Beijing and do nothing

When Push Comes to Shove, Indonesia Has to Stand By Asean

You know, I might have too high of an opinion on myself, but I think this article was written in response to what I wrote here, meaning that I have quite an impact. Yay!

---
When Push Comes to Shove, Indonesia Has to Stand By Asean
Yohanes Sulaiman | May 31, 2012

donesia has to actively assume leadership, try to mediate the dispute between China and the Philippines and should the need ultimately arise, be ready to assist the latter.'

While Indonesia remains fixated with the Lady Gaga saga, the Philippines is embroiled in more important things: its conflict with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea.

But such a dispute should be worrisome for Indonesia, too. Not only because both China and the Philippines have close relations with Indonesia. Most importantly, the dispute could undermine the unity of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Indonesia’s own strategic interests.

The goal of Asean when it was formed, to put it bluntly, was to keep the Communists out by improving cooperation among Southeast Asian states and by stimulating mutual economic growth, as it was believed that Communism could expand in poor countries due to its economic appeal to the masses.

But since the end of the Cold War, with the threat from the Communist bloc gone, the goal has subtly changed. Now the aim is to improve relationships among the member nations in order to increase their bargaining power in a more uncertain international environment. Following in the footsteps of the European Union, the Asean nations also believed that operating as one bloc, they could have more influence in international affairs.

Indonesia has a strong interest in strengthening Asean. With Asean strengthened, Indonesia will reap the benefits through an increase in prestige and clout in international affairs, as it is the natural leader of Asean, being the largest and most populous member state.

Thanks to their geostrategic position and combined wealth, Asean nations as a whole have the potential to be an influential power in international affairs.

Not surprisingly, when Indonesia became the chair of Asean last year, most of the key players in the region were in attendance: China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Australia and the United States.

The China-Philippines dispute, however, could threaten the unity of Asean.

The dispute is already escalating, with China holding 12,000 containers of the Philippines’ bananas at its ports, refusing to release them and the Philippines insinuating that it has the United States’ backing.

The Philippines’ move is both understandable and troubling.

It is understandable because the United States is the only power in the region capable of acting as a counterweight to China.

It is true that since 1967 intra-Asean trade has risen drastically. It is true that Asean’s diplomatic strategies have worked in some important cases, most spectacularly in helping to rehabilitate Burma, also known as Myanmar, in the eyes of the international community. It did this through persistent diplomacy, in conjunction with internal developments in Burma itself that allowed the reformers to reap immediate benefits through normalization in its relationship with the United States.

At the same time, however, Asean’s military cooperation remains weak and that is troubling. In times of crisis, apparently the Philippines (and Vietnam) think the United States is far more reliable a partner than the Asean community.

This is not a good indication of the future of Asean, as when push comes to shove, security is the most critical test of a region’s solidarity and unity. Would, in a time of crisis, the Asean community split due to its members’ conflicting interests or would it remain together to create a solution beneficial to everyone?

While Indonesia should maintain good relations with China, the North Asian giant’s own economic and strategic importance means the archipelago must think of the long-term strategic geopolitical situation. This means Indonesia has to stand its ground and assist its fellow Asean members. Indonesia has to actively assume leadership, try to mediate the dispute between China and the Philippines and should the need ultimately arise, be ready to assist the latter.

Otherwise, the unity of Asean will remain in doubt. This does not bode well for Indonesia’s own strategic interests in the region.

The Humility China Once Knew

It is funny how the submitted version of this article made a mistake of substituting the name "Parker" for "Pauker." Guy J. Pauker's name, while today is rarely mentioned, back in the 1950s was considered as one of the experts on Indonesia. I enjoy reading his reports and writings. He seems to have a very acerbic and cynical point of view, unlike other Indonesian experts.


--
The Humility China Once Knew
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 25, 2011

In 1955, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru promoted the Asian-African Conference in Bandung as a coming-out party for Communist China, hoping that China would be encouraged to come to terms with its neighbors and develop a diplomatic approach independent of the Soviet Union.

While the conference is seen today as a diplomatic triumph for Indonesia, Guy J. Pauker, an expert on Indonesia and onetime consultant to the US National Security Council, noted that back then it was also a diplomatic triumph for Nehru and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai.

For Nehru, bringing Communist China to the conference was an affirmation of India’s status as a harbinger of global peace, and Zhou did not disappoint his patron. Pauker noted that after the Iraqi delegate said communism was the major cause of global unrest, Zhou replied that China came to seek unity and not to quarrel. After admitting his belief in communism, he stressed that China was attending the conference to seek common ground and unity and that the meeting should not be used to promote the ideology and political system of any country.

Zhou noted that China did not raise the issue of its seat in the United Nations — which at that stage was filled by a Taiwan representative — “because otherwise our conference would be dragged into disputes about all these problems without any solutions.”

A few years later, Nehru would regret his decision to bring China to the conference, as India would be on the losing end of war with China. President Sukarno, however, was impressed enough with Zhou that a close bilateral relationship began between Indonesia and China.

In contrast, the major rebuke of China’s regional foreign policy at last week’s Asean and East Asia Summits in Bali should give the decision makers in Beijing reason for pause. Almost every member of Asean expressed concerns on maritime security in the South China Sea, in spite of China’s desire to settle the maritime disputes bilaterally with individual claimants.

The discussions on the South China Sea were just the tip of the iceberg. It seems that every pent-up grievance against China, from China’s military posturing to unfair economic practices, exploded in that moment.

Whether Beijing is aware of it or not, China is experiencing the growing pains of being a superpower — that regardless of whether its intentions are benign or not, its actions will have large impacts on its neighbors.

While China had power in the 1960s and 1970s, it could get away with many things because its power paled in comparison with the United States and the Soviet Union. But today, China is seen by its neighbors as an 800-pound panda next door with ferocious appetite for the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and Spratly Islands and a desire to extend its influence in Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Pakistan, Burma and East Timor.

At the same time, the United States, previously viewed with suspicion by many states in the region, scored a series of diplomatic triumphs: repairing a shattered relationship with Burma, garnering diplomatic support for deploying its marines in Australia (a first step to transforming Darwin into a logistics hub for US operations in the region) and to insert itself as an ally of Southeast Asian nations by defending their interests in the South China Sea.

Adding to the sense of irony is the fact that Vietnam and the Philippines — the former having ejected the United States in 1975 after decades of war and the latter having forced the United States to close its Clark and Subic bases in 1991 — this time strived to bring America back to the region to balance China.

The United States is able to take advantage of the situation as there seems to be no regional or global alternative to confront China’s suzerainty. The European Union is reeling from financial crisis. Russia is preoccupied with its own matters and its presence has been declining since the end of the Cold War. India is rising as a power, but has a limited ability to project its power abroad as it remains preoccupied with Pakistan. Japan’s power is declining as its economy remains at a standstill. Australia is rising but is considered an isolationist nation with no deep connection to other countries, and has no desire to confront China. There is also no candidate within Asean strong enough to balance China on its own.

Thus, instead of being able to take advantage of the region’s weaknesses, China united many countries in the region and brought the United States closer to its doorstep.

China should look back at history and take the heed from Zhou’s masterful performance in the 1955 conference. Instead of responding to US maneuvering with indignation, China should accept the fact it is seen as a common threat due to its diplomatic missteps and try to strike the right tone.

Nobody disputes the fact that China is rising economically and militarily. This century may be “China’s Century,” but China should make sure that its rise to power is peaceful by signaling its willingness to be a good neighbor.

Years ago, Zhou’s excellent performance and his diplomatic smoothness to guarantee the Asian-African Conference’s success generated goodwill among delegates toward China. Pauker put it succinctly, saying Zhou “was personally successful largely because he did not behave like the representative of a great power.”

It is time for China to channel the spirit of the wise old statesman.

America and Asean: It’s Complicated

Another collaborative article. Check our sister-blog at http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/

---
America and Asean: It’s Complicated
Brad Nelson & Yohanes Sulaiman | November 14, 2011

Barring any last-minute change, US President Barack Obama will attend the end of the Asean summit in Bali this week. His trip will come under the cloud of the ongoing economic crisis in Europe, where the fate of the euro and the unity of the European Union itself is in doubt as never before.

With America’s economy in disarray, Europe is now forced to ask China for economic assistance. Indeed, the prognosis for the US economy remains bad, with doubts growing globally that the United States can do anything to lead the world out of its economic doldrums.

Underlining the gravity of the situation, there will also be an Asean Plus Three (Japan, China and South Korea) meeting at the same time as the Asean-US gathering, meaning Obama is going to be put directly in the path of the Chinese economic steamroller.

There is some good news for the United States, such as the growing resentment of several Southeast Asian nations, including the rising giant India, toward the 800-ton Chinese panda. But the message implicit in the arrangement of the double summit is clear: Obama cannot take his eyes off the ball in Asia.

It is true that China itself is experiencing some economic problems of its own. While China’s economic growth still sets the bar worldwide, it’s predicted to decline by 0.5 percent this year and by the same margin again in 2012. Some economists fear a rapid economic slowdown as early as 2013.

China’s real estate market is on the downswing. Global demand for Chinese goods is slowing, and to make the situation worse, Chinese consumers are unable to replace declining exports.

Yet, what is important here is the perception among Asian countries that China, regardless of its economic troubles, is still on the rise while the United States is declining both in economic and military terms.

Regardless of Beijing’s insistence that its actions are benign and that it has no designs in the region, some Southeast Asian nations see the situation differently. To them, China’s growing influence will negatively impact the region, from its involvement — whether real or imagined — in the internal politics of countries such as Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma and Thailand to its growing assertiveness in the South China Sea.

While Washington has stepped up its engagement with Asia over the last year, questions about American leadership exist. Facing a perceived existential threat from China, the region wants America’s undivided attention. The problem is that they perceive Obama as constantly distracted by other events, including his domestic battles with a hostile Congress. The health care debate, for instance, derailed his much-anticipated visit to Indonesia in March 2010 and drowned out much public discussion of other important issues for months.

Additionally, even though some pundits with inside knowledge of the White House, such as journalist Fareed Zakaria, have claimed that Obama wanted to focus on Asia right from the beginning of his term, it took more than two years for him to begin to shift his attention this way. Granted, he had to attend to two wars in the Middle East, but that’s not really an excuse. As time passed, and as the United States remained bogged down in the Middle East, events continued in Asia. And China continued its rise.

Arguably, it is this concern, as much as any deliberate intentions by Obama, that triggered the White House to shift its attention toward Asia. Obama has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and, most recently, Gates’s successor, Leon Panetta, largely to reassure wary Asian countries of America’s commitment to the region.

Moreover, Obama’s doctrine of “leading from behind” in Libya creates further confusion about America’s commitment to Asia. Specifically, will the United States apply this foreign policy approach to Asia? Will it try to get other friendly countries to take up its current roles here? By delegating military and economic support to one or several surrogates, the United States could reduce its overseas burdens. For those who are tired of US imperialism, this might sound like a good thing.

But here lies a major problem. On the one hand, for many countries in Asia, the United States is seen as a fickle partner that displays knee-jerk reactions to any perceived human rights abuses.

Take the example of Indonesia, which was on the United States’ side during the cold war. It found itself in the figurative doghouse with an embargo imposed on its armed forces after the Dili Massacre in 1991. The embargo itself was lifted recently, but the lingering effect remains. With troubles currently brewing in West Papua, Indonesia is wary that any misstep will be perceived as systemic human rights abuses, triggering another embargo. Not surprisingly, the military and political elites in Indonesia are very distrustful of US intentions.

On the other hand, Indonesia, like other countries in the region, recognizes that it needs America’s political, economic and security presence to balance against China if necessary. Like it or not, the United States plays a crucial role in the stability of Asia. In the absence of a strong US presence, there’s no one country or group of countries to take its place, which will leave already nervous countries even more worried about their standing in the changing geopolitical order.

An Asian Euro?

This article is memorable because it led to a very funny back-and-forth discussion between me and my editor on the context of the term "ugly girl" and how to tweak the ending to make it better. Unfortunately, that ending ended up jettisonned.

Ben: In your article you say that Lasker disliked the imperial system, implying that the "ugly girl" is the system. From a very quick search online, I take it that the ugly girl isn't the system, but Bavaria -- seen then by Lasker and many others as backward and quaint. Thus, the ugly girl today is profligate states, not the EU. Sound about right?

Me: Actually, I got my quote from George G. Windell, "The Bismarckian Empire as a Federal State, 1866–1880: A Chronicle of Failure," Central European History, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec 1969. Page 381:

Many liberals in the North German Reichstag bitterly criticized Bismarck's further appeasement of particularism. Some indeed would have preferred to meet the issuehead-on in the Reichstag itself, but in the end they could not bring themselves to vote against the treateis, and thereby assume responsibility for what others would have regarded as sabotage of naitonal cause. The great National-Liberal Eduard Lasker, stated their viewpoint most succinctly in the phrase, "The Girl is ugly, but we must marry her anyway."

ON second look, probably you are right. I haven't read this article in ages, but I still remembered that quote, so I might have forgotten the context. Dunno why, but I cannot find the full article now, had to rely on google. I really miss my university's subscription of JSTOR.

Ben: Mm.. it would appear here that they were opposed to "particularism." Whether that means Bavaria or imperialism, I can't say...

Me: I really hate it when I forgot the context of a quote. I've been trying to find the original paper, thought I had it on my hard drive (I downloaded TONS of academic papers when I graduated) but I could not find it. I think we better go with your first interpretation, though the first and final paragraph would probably need a bit tweakings.

Ben: I tweaked things a bit and I think it looks OK. The biggest thing was recognizing that the marriage had already taken place, and so this is a decision to remain committed to it -- rather than a decision to marry.

Me: That's case for the European Union, but ASEAN has not tied the "knots" yet. Whether it will be the knot on the neck depends on how prepared they will be, which I really pessimistic, because they are all not that forthcoming to each other.

BTW: I really appreciate you trying to track down the quote to make sure it is still in context. From what I rememberd, Lasker disliked the imperial system, so that might be what threw me off.

Ben: That's right. The only other things was that I liked the sound of the final paragraph, but I couldn't quite make sense of it. The girl can wait (the Bavaria-like nations), but the groom must be ready (the "superior nations"). In fact, though, the girl has to have her fiscal house in order before the groom can accept her... so it could actually be that the groom has to wait for the girl to be ready. (Or it could be as you wrote it: look before you leap.)

Trying saying that ten times really fast.


Me: A middle ground will be that the ugly girl needs to get her house in order or learn how to cook well (the girl is ugly, but at least she can cook), and the groom needs to accept her unconditionally till death do them part.  Gosh, I just realize it, but don't we sound very sexist tonight? LoL

Don't tempt me to say that 10 times....


Ben: Yes. All we can say is that the metaphor wasn't ours. Although it would appear we're taking ownership quite well.


----
An Asian Euro?
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 11, 2011

Facing the prospect of a united German empire under Kaiser Wilhelm I in the late 1860s, the northern lawmaker Eduard Lasker, who supported a united Germany but disliked the ways of the Bavarian south said something to the effect of “The girl is ugly, but we must marry her anyway.”

That seems to be the feeling nowadays in Berlin and Paris. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have been frustrated and angered by the unwillingness of both Greece and Italy to pursue economic reforms.

This long-running drama holds several lessons for Southeast Asia — in particular the member states of Asean as they embark on the road toward greater economic integration.

For Greece and Italy, the political costs of reform are great. Their labor unions oppose cuts and threats to their privileges. People are protesting the harsh austerity policies call into question the future of sacred social welfare perks. Politicians, after spending decades hiding the true cost of the welfare state, are afraid to push for reform.

Patience is wearing thin in Berlin and Paris. Last month, both Merkel and Sarkozy demanded that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi get his country’s economy in order. Last week, they told Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, after he had announced a referendum to decide whether Greece would accept the austerity policy, that the question should be “Do you want to stay in the euro zone or not?”

Both Merkel and Sarkozy knew they had to act vigorously, as the taxpayers of France and Germany — not to mention other wealthy Northern European countries ­— were angry, unwilling to support what they saw as profligate countries of Southern Europe spending their hard-earned tax money. In essence, both were afraid that the European currency would collapse, and with it, the European Union.

Thus the paradox: On one hand, they disliked what they believed to be irresponsible behaviors of Italy and Greece. On the other, they had to stay married to the “ugly girls” in order to save the union. The problem is that the market today no longer believes that the rich Northern European countries are committed to the marriage.

Asean should take warning from the EU’s dilemma. Unlike the EU, Asean does not have a single currency. Its institution is not as strong as the EU, since it remains content with working relationships in various sectors, notably the economy and social issues.

At the same time, there is a desire for stronger economic integration in order to boost regional economic growth, with the final goal of a single currency. Already there are plans to integrate regional economy by 2015.

The question is whether the commitment will remain strong when bad times arrive. There is still much distrust among Asean countries, with conflicts flaring up regularly along borders. Because of Asean’s ineffective arbitration systems, countries like Malaysia have resorted to taking cases to the International Court of Justice instead of trying to solve problems bilaterally or regionally.

There are also still questions of whether members are honest in their bookkeeping and in reporting their economic indicators. The root of the European crisis was because Greece had been cooking its books, misstating its economic indicators and in turn misrepresenting its budget deficit. Can Asean countries be trusted in their bookkeeping, especially when many of its governments remain unaccountable to their people?

Moreover, there is the question of whether Asean could act decisively in time of crisis. The Asean bureaucracy grinds slowly and there is potential for a crisis of confidence in crucial times. Powerhouses France and Germany display economic leadership in times of crises that is clearly accepted by the EU members, but Asean has no such members than can step up to the plate.

These problems are not deal-breakers for Asean, but they should be considered as it pursues its path to greater economic integration. Rather than aiming for an unrealistic target with a short time frame, Asean should instead first strengthen itself as an institution, giving it power to solve problems when troubles arise.

The devil is always in the details, and Asean should take care to find any skeletons that might be hiding in its closets. Otherwise any effort to increase Asean economic integration is doomed from the beginning

Prosperity and Economic Stability First, Then Asean Can Push More Democracy

I am flattered that Stanley Weiss of the Huffington Post quoted this article, but frankly I am very amused when he labeled me as an ASEAN supporter. I think I am actually considered as an ASEAN skeptic.
---
Prosperity and Economic Stability First, Then Asean Can Push More Democracy
Yohanes Sulaiman | July 26, 2011

Speaking at Asean’s Regional Security Forum in Bali this past weekend, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Asean, and Indonesia specifically, to help promote democracy in Burma, the Middle East and North Africa.

While the attempt to spread democracy is admirable and will be met with polite approval, it is very unlikely that Indonesia and Asean will assist the United States in promoting democracy, especially in Burma, for several reasons.

First is that the current economic weakness of the United States strongly undermines its position. The tsunami-like spread of democracy in the 1980s and ’90s to some degree was bolstered by the bankruptcy of communist countries. Governments in these nations fell after citizens compared their horrid economic conditions with the prosperity of the United States under Ronald Reagan.

Gorbachev’s decision to launch glasnost (political openness) and perestroika (economic reform) was influenced by what he considered to be a successful Western economic model. It was no wonder that in 1989, Francis Fukuyama published his famous essay, “The End of History,” celebrating the advent of liberal democracy.

In today’s economic climate, however, authoritarian leaders and their populations are appalled by America’s lack of economic discipline and massive debt. Authoritarian leaders and thrifty populations in Southeast Asia are more likely to applaud the responsible semi-authoritarian system of Singapore or the economic-oriented authoritarian system of China than the spendthrift democratic United States.

They see that whereas China and Singapore built themselves up under strong leaders, leading to strong economic growth, the democratic United States is currently in the grips of “the Great Recession.” In addition, current political gridlock in Washington between Republicans and Democrats, combined with Obama’s inability to keep things in order, has damaged America’s prestige — not to mention its economic ratings.

If democracy provides nothing but economic crisis, political squabbling and gridlock, why would anyone want it? Better stick with the authoritarian system of China, the thinking goes, or the semi-authoritarianism of Singapore, both of which seem to know what they are doing and can act decisively in times of need.

Recalling the Great Depression of the 1930s, it was economic crisis that discredited democracies. Popular demand for strong governments launched totalitarian regimes in Germany and Italy. Finally, it was the economic prosperity of the 1980s that signaled the end of communism.

In essence, former President Bill Clinton was right: It’s the economy, stupid. The sooner the United States can get its fiscal house in order, the sooner it will again be the beacon of democracy that many countries want to emulate.

The other reason that Hillary Clinton’s words are likely to have little effect on Asean lies in the simple fact that the grouping does not have much power over its members. Asean’s lack of formal organizational structure and punishment mechanisms means that getting something done depends on both the consensus and the willingness of its members to act. Unlike the European Union, which has a “carrot and stick” ability to punish and reward members through economic policy, Asean has nothing more than social pressure and the threat of expulsion from the group.

The power of social pressure, however, is strongly undermined by the geostrategic concerns of the bloc’s members. While political oppression, human rights violations and electoral manipulations in Burma have embarrassed Asean, member states have little economic leverage with which to force action. It would be far more damaging for Burma to upset its primary patron, China.

At this point, with the conflict in the South China Sea at the forefront of Asean’s attention, there is simply no appetite to engage and to enrage Burma over its human rights records, lest Burma, upset with what would be seen as international meddling, leave Asean and get pulled closer into Beijing’s orbit. This could further threaten the interests and security of Asean itself. Thus, Asean’s options are very limited in this case.

Moreover, the human rights records of many Asean members are not that stellar either. Recent political suppression in Malaysia over the Bersih 2.0 movement undermines the image of the country as a democratic state that guarantees freedom of speech and conducts elections fairly. In Indonesia, violence against religious minorities, some officials’ complete disregard of the rule of law in order to impose discriminatory policies on religious minorities and recent reports of possible human rights violations in Papua raise a lot of eyebrows. The rest of the Asean countries do not get off scot-free either. In short, many Asean countries themselves are not in the position to lecture others on human rights as they have their own human-rights skeletons in their closets.

Adding to all of this is the fact that there is no political will in Indonesia to assist the United States in promoting democracy. Indonesia at this point is completely preoccupied with political scandals involving President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s party. With each installment of Nazaruddin’s allegation drawing the government’s attention, foreign policy and initiatives become the first casualties of a government scrambling to douse public outrage.

In today’s Indonesia, many people are looking at the performance of the government and the legislature and lamenting the dysfunction and inability of both to get things done. They are looking back with nostalgia on the stability and economic growth of Suharto’s New Order, blaming current government paralysis on the excesses of “liberal democracy,” which is seen as not having local roots. While those people are in the minority, this is still a worrying trend, coming so close on the heels of Suharto’s repression.

Thus, Hillary Clinton was right to encourage entrepreneurship. A push for greater democracy is not the only component that is needed, economic fulfillment is also necessary. Prosperity is the best way to spread democracy and the first thing the United States has to do is to get its economy in order by making painful sacrifices.


-----

ASEAN, the EU and the End of Westphalia

Posted: 09/ 1/11 02:49 PM ET

BALI -- Set upon a blue background, the flag of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations depicts 10 yellow rice paddy stalks drawn in the middle of a red circle with a white border. The interesting thing about the banner is not merely that it represents the main colors of all ten ASEAN member state flags: Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and the Philippines. It is that 44 years to the day after ASEAN was founded, on August 8th -- in a development that received little attention outside Asia -- the flag was hoisted for the first time alongside the banners of all member states at hundreds of embassies and diplomatic missions around the world.

Kicking off a year dedicated to the theme "Unity in Diversity", ASEAN's stirring declaration of interdependence is just the latest example of what ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan describes to me as "our drive to raise our own bargaining power from a larger base." At a time when the European Union's struggle to rescue free-spending members Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Greece threatens to bring the whole continent tumbling down, ASEAN is rushing headlong to create a single economic community by 2015.

But there is more at stake here than simply the joint success or failure of 10 Asian nations, whose 600 million people represent a combined gross domestic product of $1.7 trillion -- making it the sixth-largest economy in the world. ASEAN's move to integration represents a different model of regional cooperation from the EU -- less rooted in democracy, more tolerant of human rights violations, and more committed to sovereignty -- that may go a long way toward defining how other regions evolve in the 21st Century.

In short, ASEAN "is making the case for a new kind of regionalism," writes David Carson, the first resident U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN.

In academic circles, both the EU and ASEAN lend themselves to a discussion of a "post-Westphalian world." Signed in 1648, the Peace of Westphalia not only ended 80 years of war in Europe, it also created the modern state system. Westphalia established fixed territorial boundaries for countries and established the idea that citizens of a respective country were subject primarily to the laws (and actions) of their respective governments. Conversely, it also created the notion that government is sovereign to rule its people as it sees fit. While giving rise to order, Westphalia also enabled three centuries of human rights abuses.

The 20th Century chipped away at the Westphalian idea. The creation of the United Nations and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 represented the first global expression of rights fundamental to all human beings, challenging the Westphalian concept of sovereignty. For half a century, it was applied delicately, often through sanctions, in places like South Africa. It wasn't until the 1990s when the international community intervened directly on behalf of humanitarian principle in Haiti and Kosovo -- a thread that runs through NATO's intervention in Libya today.

Meanwhile, the creation of a unified EU in 1993 was the moment historians began speaking of a post-Westphalian world. ASEAN is putting an Asian spin on the concept of unity. As Surin Pitsuwan tells me, "The European model is our inspiration, not our model."

Unlike the EU, the ASEAN vision doesn't yet include a unified currency, joint visas, or the fully free flow of labor. While ASEAN has reportedly implemented 75 percent of the blueprint it passed in 2008 to create a regional trade bloc, unlike the EU, it also remains committed to a principal of nonintervention in the affairs of members, known as the "ASEAN Way." While the EU pulls out its collective hair trying to restructure an intransigent Greece, ASEAN still takes a hands-off approach to member state Myanmar, whose brutal authoritarianism -- despite recent elections -- remains a drag on ASEAN's global image.

Yet, while Western observers condemn ASEAN over Myanmar and argue that a wobblier version of the EU will never work because it lacks central authority to enforce common rules, ASEAN supporters say sarcastically to me, "the U.S. is one to talk."

"Authoritarian leaders and their populations here are appalled by America's lack of discipline and massive debt," said Yohanes Sulaiman, a lecturer at Indonesia's National Defense University, in a recent essay. "If democracy provides nothing but economic crisis, political squabbling, and gridlock, why would anyone want it? Better to stick with the authoritarian system of China or the semi-authoritarianism of Singapore."

It is no accident that ASEAN members have been focused on increasing trade with one other (up 31 percent in 2010), with neighboring China (up 25 percent in the first half of 2011) and with other Asian countries. As Indonesian Vice President Boediono said at a recent ASEAN meeting, "the U.S. and Europe could no longer be the main engines of growth for the world economy."

The danger is not simply that Western investors fall behind in one of the world's fastest-growing regions. The danger is that as other regions consider similar integration -- imagine a South Asian confederation of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives or a future bloc in the Middle East.

In November, President Barack Obama is scheduled to attend the East Asian Summit in Bali. In his remarks, President Obama should take responsibility for America's debt crisis and promise to be a better partner for Asia, articulate progressive benchmarks ASEAN could help Myanmar achieve by 2015 and link passage of a long-desired U.S.-ASEAN free trade agreement to those benchmarks being met.

It may not forestall the end of Westphalia- - but it could help extend Western leadership into the 21st Century.

Stanley A. Weiss is Founding Chairman of Business Executives for National Security, a nonpartisan organization based in Washington. The views expressed are his own.

As Nations Gather in Bali, Indonesia Puts Its Lack of Imagination on Display

The problem here, I think, is the lack of a coherent grand strategy of Indonesian foreign policy. SBY wants it to be "grand," but without direction?

---
As Nations Gather in Bali, Indonesia Puts Its Lack of Imagination on Display
Yohanes Sulaiman | July 19, 2011

With little fanfare, the 18th Asean Regional Forum got under way in Bali this past weekend. Sadly, local coverage of the meeting is next to nonexistent.

Such a lack of attention and promotion from both the Indonesian government and the media can be attributed to the fact that neither find it to be as important as local political scandals threatening President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s popularity.

It is a shame, because the forum will be attended by key players in global security, such as the US secretary of state and the foreign affairs ministers from North Korea, South Korea, Japan and China.

In the news at least, the Japanese are taking the forum seriously. The Japan Times, The Mainichi Daily News, NHK World, Nikkei and Kyodo News have launched an English language Web site solely to provide news of this meeting. Seoul is also looking at this forum intently, as its national news outlet Yonhap reported that the South Korean foreign minister was willing to meet his North Korean counterpart during the forum.

The attendance of global luminaries and the massive attention from the international news outlets show how vital the diplomatic community finds the Southeast Asia region. Were Indonesia prepared, it could take advantage of the global spotlight to showcase its international ambition and leadership in the Asean region.

The lack of promotion from the government may simply be because it does not know what to expect from this forum, considering the intractable problems on the table — from the Cambodia-Thailand border spats that threaten Asean’s raison d’être to China’s growing influence in the region, including in the South China Sea. Not to mention the speculation that the forum may be used to jump-start the stalled negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.

The Cambodia-Thailand border spats seem not to be ending anytime soon, in spite of Yingluck Shinawatra’s victory in recent Thai elections. Even though Yingluck decisively won Thailand’s recent election and her elder brother, the fugitive former Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra, has a good relationship with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, she had to tread the waters carefully, lest her opponents accuse her of selling out to Cambodia.

At the same time, the South China Sea will be on everyone’s mind. The growing might of China, its swelling blue-water ambition — evidenced by the recent unveiling of its new aircraft carrier— and its perceived provocations toward Asean countries that have made claims to the Spratly and Paracel island chains will put the relevancy of Asean to the test. At this point, Asean has no common policy or structure set in place to respond to the rise of China and India. Nor does it have a plan to deal with the waning of the US’s international commitments.

While the former US defense secretary Robert Gates announced in Singapore during his visit last June that “the US defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further,” he warned NATO just a week later that “there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

Even though such warnings were reserved for NATO, it also gave signals to other states that rely on US assistance that they have to keep “playing ball” lest the United States no longer provide military assistance due to the public resistance to continued spending of blood and money to be global policeman.
As the largest and the most populous state in Asean, Indonesia has the opportunity to rise to the occasion. Unfortunately, with the defense budget even lower than “the little red dot” city of Singapore and the likelihood that the budget will be slashed again in the near future, Indonesia’s commitment and ability to take the reins and lead regional security efforts are questionable.

Such diplomatic paralysis is deplorable and unfavorably compared to Indonesian diplomacy during Suharto’s New Order. Back in the 1980s, Indonesian foreign ministers Mochtar Kusumaatmadja and Ali Alatas directed foreign policy toward the dual objectives of ending of the Vietnamese intervention and also the civil war in Cambodia. These foreign policy objectives were pursued in spite of objections from some Asean members who were hoping that the Cambodian conflict would, in Dewi Fortuna Anwar’s words, “bleed Vietnam white.”

For Indonesia back then, what really mattered was preventing China from increasing its regional influence and, secondly, the spread of communism after the Vietnam War. While many Asean countries were not pleased with Indonesia’s initiatives, in the end its foreign policy was vindicated with the ending of the Cambodian civil war, the withdrawal of Vietnam and the expansion of Asean through the inclusion of Vietnam. At the same time, both Indonesia and China were aware of their growing importance in global affairs, which led to the rapprochements of both countries and, subsequently, the re-establishment of diplomatic relations in 1990.

Such imagination and audacity is unfortunately lacking in Indonesia’s foreign policy objective today. Instead of trying to lead Asean, to find a breakthrough to end the Cambodia-Thailand border conflict and to create a common regional response toward the rise of the influence of China and India and the withdrawal of the United States from global affairs, Indonesia seems more interested in just holding the forum. In fact, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa was quoted as saying that he did not expect any resolution to many of these issues at the talks. To put it simply, there is no goal, no international objective to pursue.

In the end, Indonesia needs to get its groove back. It has to start acting again as the regional leader. We can start by taking a careful look at our foreign policy objectives.

-----