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.

Sondang, Abandoned by Nation

Another jointly written article.

------
Sondang, Abandoned by Nation
Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | December 14, 2011

Sondang Hutagalung, who set himself on fire in front of the Presidential Palace a week ago and died of his burns on Saturday, was pictured in May 2011 rallying in Jakarta to commemorate the Trisakti University shootings of May 1998. (AFP Photo/Fanny Octavianus)

Days after the death of Sondang Hutagalung, the nation is seeking to answer the question of what drove the student human rights activist to commit an act of self-immolation in front of the Presidential Palace last week.

Most see it as a form of protest against the government and what might be called the social status quo in graft-ridden Indonesia. At the very least, we can say that the young man saw life as not worth living under such circumstances. Perhaps he also saw his act as a sacrifice to point out that the country was itself engaged in a slow-moving act of self-immolation.

Reactions to the tragedy have been mixed. While some praised Sondang’s action as heroic, some public figures criticized it as short-sighted and cowardly. Cabinet Secretary Dipo Alam, for instance, declared that “a young fighter is supposed to be brave in facing life,” and that it would have been much better to keep fighting under any circumstances.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the act as a valid form of protest, such a suicide signals a much deeper problem within society. Self-immolation is exceedingly uncommon and throughout the world is only seen in the most desperate times and situations. It is a reaction to the intolerable.

Consider previous acts of self-immolation. In 1963, a Buddhist monk named Thich Quang Duc burned himself to death in Saigon in a protest against the persecution of Buddhists by the authoritarian South Vietnamese government. While the act of self-immolation wasn’t the first in Vietnamese history, it resonated among a population in desperate times. Today many recall the event as the beginning of the end of Ngo Dinh Diem’s authoritarian regime.

More recently, the Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi committed an act of self-immolation that sparked the Arab Spring uprisings and the subsequent toppling of several dictators in succession. His action was also driven by desperation — as a young man, there was no opportunity in Tunisia. The authoritarian regime of Zine el Abidine Ben Ali had strangled the economic growth with its massive corruption and a dysfunctional justice system that provided no relief from social injustices.

Such acts of self-immolation occur due to feelings of utter helplessness in the face of uncaring governments. When people resort to this kind of public act of suicide, it is not because they do not have the will to fight, but because they see no other possible way to reform a dysfunctional government.

One can make a strong case that Sondang’s action differed from those of Duc and Bouazizi. The latter were living in authoritarian states, while Indonesia is a democracy. Yet it cannot be denied that the quality of Indonesia’s democracy is still low, bogged down by corruption and nepotism as well as an entrenched political elite that is resistant to reform.

The recent revelation of massive corruption among young civil servants is a case in point. When a junior employee is rich, a great many other people in his office are also guilty, because there’s no way a subordinate can gain such money without the acquiescence of superiors.

As Sondang’s death is discussed and analyzed there is a danger that various interests groups will try to hijack its meaning as a rallying point for their own purposes. Already former President Megawati Sukarnoputri is on record as saying Sondang’s act showed there was something wrong with how the country was being run. Is she condemning herself here or pointing the finger?

And according to presidential spokesman Daniel Sparingga, there were thousands of messages in Sondang’s death, and people should take from it what they need. But are we so self-absorbed that we need someone’s death to teach us a lesson?

The palace’s comment could likewise be interpreted as an attempt to diffuse the impact of this dramatic protest. For any protest to be successful it must have a clear cause and a clear voice, not a thousand voices and a thousand interpretations. To suggest that each one of us should take from Sondong’s death whatever message we need, for whatever purposes, suggests a supermarket approach, a pick-and-chose attitude, and would indicate that the tyranny of relativism is finding its way into the consciousness of Indonesians. And that is probably the case. Ask anyone involved in corruption and you will find that the act is “relative.” What’s right and truthful and ethical for one will be different for someone else. And justifiable because of that. This is a way of thinking that ultimately leads to national moral, economic, political and social suicide.

The image of Sondang haltingly making his way toward the palace gates aflame was a singularly potent image of isolation. A solitary death surrounded by a crowd. Solitary thoughts in an anguished mind. In itself that is a symbol of the breakdown of inter-dependency in Indonesia. Sondong died alone because he had been abandoned by his country. He died alone because he had been cast away from the body of his nation. And because he could find no reason for the suffering inflicted by that abandonment he took his own life.

Of course, there are other abandoned Indonesians, and Sondang’s solitary act may well serve as a symbol for them. By continuously showing by its actions that it has little sense of accountability to the people, the government has abandoned many citizens. And its tactics of divide and rule are summed up in the palace’s unfortunate statement that Sondong’s death can be interpreted in a thousand ways. It can’t. His death said only one thing: Indonesia is not taking care of itself as a nation. We are all in this together and Sondong clearly saw that the government refused to see it. The economy may be booming yet the nation is dying by its own hand.

 

trueblue

2:44pm Dec 15, 2011

Y&T
Something is missing in this piece. You have given us ample background information to understand this extreme form of of protest, but I fail to see that you have provided a better answer than the one thousand potential interpretations. I reject that there is an analogy with the self-immolation of Duc in South Vietnam in 1963. Indonesia today is not an authoritarian state of the ilk of South Vietnam facing a communist full on insurgency from the North. There is absolutely no comparison. With respect to the pic headlining this piece, once again I would advocate a different perspective. The shooting of four students on May 12, 1998, was just one of many incidents of students participating in the downfall of Suharto. That incident was not the seminal act that set in place the dominoes. The picture of Sodong with a red ? mark on his torso demonstrating, is obviously one of a young man with a political conscience. That however cannot lead us to a conclusion of an achievement. RIP.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

3:43pm Dec 15, 2011

First, I don't think that we are making the claim that self-immolation is some sort of achievement. You are right that the case of Duc is vastly different in term of background from Sondang. What we claim here is that this case reflects an utter desperation, that he believed that there would be no way to reform the country -- except through shock (I suspect he was heavily influenced by the Tunisian case that led to the outbreak of the Arab Spring).

All three cases basically showed the ultimate form of protest, that because the government is completely tone-deaf to the demands from people to reform, probably it is a good idea to shock the political discourse, to make people to start talking about reform, or getting aroused to fight the bureaucratic stonewalling.

padt

7:52am Dec 16, 2011

Trueblue, the point of the article was to suggest that Sondang's death indicated and was a protest, born of frustration, against 'the breakdown of inter-dependency in Indonesia'.
To complete one of the lines: "We are all in this (the business of living) together AND WE OWE EACH OTHER A TERRIBLE LOYALTY."
Such a thing cannot be said in present day Indonesia where the government, by its actions, shows little real and genuine concern for the people. The government shows little dependency or loyalty to the nation - to the people. It is too self-serving. The benefits of the economic boom are not being felt by the people who are most in need and who should most benefit from it because the government and allied agencies are corrupt. Any sense of inter-dependency and mutual repsonsibility and the building up of the common good is quickly being eroded by the venality and lack of political integrity by those who are abusinging their positions of power and influence. National suicide!

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.