Indonesia, ASEAN and Regional Stabilityadmin.thcasean.org/assets/uploads/file/2017/03/Indonesia,_ASEAN... · Indonesia, ASEAN. and Regional Stability. ... being ASEAN’s contribution

Indonesia, ASEANand Regional Stability

Inaugural Lecture as a Member of the Social Science Commission of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Auditorium, Secretariat of the Vice President, Jakarta, 16 February 2017

Prof. Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, M.A.

Indonesia, ASEANand Regional Stability


Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 3

Introduction 4

The Benefits of ASEAN for Indonesia 6

ASEAN’s Role in Maintaining Regional Peace and Stability 14

Conclusion 22

Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA4 ASEAN FlagSource: rankflags.com

Introduction

O n the 8th of August 2017, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) will turn fifty years old. During this year, many seminars, discussions, and other activities are certain to be held to commemorate the half-century of

ASEAN, an age that cannot be called young anymore. Since its founding in Bangkok through a short declaration by five countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand), ASEAN has successfully gathered ten countries into one regional cooperative forum, along with becoming the main determinant of regional order, both between its members and in Southeast Asia’s relationship with external parties.

ASEAN has attained many achievements, the most apparent being ASEAN’s contribution in creating regional security, peace, and stability. The ASEAN region is characterized by harmonious relations between its members, unlike before ASEAN’s establishment. In contrast to many other regions in the world, which are full of tensions, such as in Northeast Asia or the open conflicts in the Middle East, the Southeast Asian region can be likened to a peaceful oasis.

Aside from its various achievements, ASEAN has also invited many criticisms, primarily from those who want the organization to be something more than what it is now. There are also those who remain sceptical and question whether ASEAN is still relevant in tackling the increasingly complex regional challenges, mainly to what extent ASEAN can maintain its unity amidst the rise of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC), who aim to control the

entire South China Sea.

All this time, ASEAN has been regarded as the cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy. Lately, however, there are those who view that Indonesia should no longer regard ASEAN as its main priority given that Indonesia’s national interests far exceed what ASEAN is able to offer. On the occasion of ASEAN’s fifty years of existence, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the main reasons why Indonesia was active in the founding of ASEAN, along with understanding why and how ASEAN’s institutions have developed in such a way as we see today. Next, we need to see our current and future challenges and think what we can do together to ensure that the Southeast Asian region and its surroundings remain a safe, peaceful, and stable region, factors which are absolutely necessary for economic development and prosperity.


Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA6 Balinese DanceSource: Wikimedia Commons

The Benefitsof ASEANfor Indonesia

I ndonesia’s involvement in the creation of ASEAN was one of the first significant foreign policies by the New Order government under President Suharto, which fundamentally changed the orientation of Indonesia’s foreign policy away from the preceding era under the

leadership of President Sukarno. This change in orientation was a logical consequence of the domestic changes. Under President Sukarno, especially during the Guided Democracy era (1959-1965) which was commonly known as the Old Order, Indonesia’s foreign policy was chiefly concerned with the decolonization of West Irian which was then still under Dutch control and also with rallying the powers of newly independent and developing countries against neo-colonialism and global imperialism which were seen as the main threats to Indonesia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Indonesia carried out a “lighthouse” foreign policy in order to build a world free from the domination of Western colonialist and imperialist countries. President Sukarno launched the “ganyang” or crush Malaysia confrontation as he deemed the creation of the Malaysian Federation in 1963, which was orchestrated by the British, as an effort to maintain the latter’s influence over its former colonies, and perceived as a threat to Indonesia’s national interests.

The policy of confrontation with Malaysia worsened Indonesia’s relations with Western countries, which were the world’s main economic powers. During that time, Indonesia’s foreign policy turned increasingly leftward, resulting in the Jakarta-Phnom Penh-Hanoi-Pyongyang-Peking Axis. This situation was the background to Indonesia’s domestic political turmoil which

ended in President Sukarno’s fall from his position as ‘President for Life’, the rise in power of the armed forces, and the birth of the anti-communist New Order regime under President Suharto.

For the New Order government, the main threat to Indonesia’ stability and integrity came from within. While communist powers, primarily the PRC, replaced neo-colonialism and imperialism as the primary external threats. The leaders of the New Order quickly froze Indonesia’s diplomatic relations with the PRC as Beijing was alleged to have been involved in the G30S/PKI movement in 1965. The New Order government’s priorities were to ensure domestic peace, stability, and economic development, all of which were intertwined, considering that in the first two decades after Indonesia’s declaration of independence, Indonesia was embroiled in many conflicts and economic crises. In order to increase economic growth, Indonesia needed large amounts of investments, loans, aid, technological knowhow, and markets for its exports, which at that time could only be provided by western industrialized countries and Japan, which was the United States’ main ally in Asia.

The formation of ASEAN as a platform for regional cooperation among non-communist Southeast Asian countries, at a time when the Vietnam War was raging at the height of the global rivalry between the eastern and western blocs, was a significant strategic step for Indonesia and Southeast Asia as a whole. During the research for my PhD dissertation on “ASEAN as an Aspect of Indonesian Foreign Policy” around thirty years ago, I noted eight main reasons for Indonesia’s involvement in the creation of


ASEAN along with its commitment to maintain ASEAN as the cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy which are still relevant today.

1. ASEAN forms and maintains Indonesia’s image as a good neighbour for regional stability

The confrontation policy to ‘crush’ Malaysia that was launched by the Old Order as alluded to before worsened relations between Indonesia and Western countries, especially the United Kingdom, the United States, and its allies. Just as important, neighbouring Southeast Asian countries perceived Indonesia as aggressive and threatening. Neighbouring countries which are all smaller in size, especially Malaysia and Singapore, saw Indonesia as a “regional bully” that endangered its environment. Other than freezing diplomatic relations with the PRC, the first diplomatic step taken by the New Order government was to stop the confrontation and restore bilateral relations with Malaysia. Yet this was not deemed to be sufficient. Indonesia needed to convince everyone that its confrontational foreign policy against neighbouring Southeast Asian nations would not be repeated.

By binding itself within ASEAN, Indonesia made a commitment to always maintain good relations with its neighbouring countries. Its foreign policy, which was previously confrontational and “high-profile”, became based on regional cooperation and “low-profile”. The stigma as an aggressive country slowly changed when Indonesia succeeded in showing restraint when dealing with its smaller neighbours.

Indonesia’s membership in ASEAN, which throughout the Cold War only included non-communist countries, also strengthened Indonesia’s image as an anti-communist power in Southeast Asia. All of these played an important role in attracting the support of Western countries and Japan, particularly during the Cold War, so as to entice economic aid for Indonesia.

Although in the fifty years since ASEAN was established Indonesia has succeeded in showing its commitment to maintaining good relations with its neighbours, the suspicion of smaller countries towards Indonesia as the largest member has yet to be fully erased. The continuation of Indonesia’s role in ASEAN still and will always be needed in order to maintain Indonesia’s image as a peace-loving country in the region.

2. ASEAN encourages a harmonious region

It cannot be denied that there is a positive correlation between the presence of ASEAN and an increasingly harmonious regional situation, a situation that was very different from the one that existed before 1967. Despite the fact that during the first two decades there was little concrete cooperation within ASEAN, increasingly intensive interactions fostered mutual trust and understanding among its members. ASEAN succeeded in easing tensions and preventing open conflicts between its members because the continuation of the regional organization was regarded as a manifestation of the commitment of each member state to foster cooperation and a peaceful region. To this end, the member states of ASEAN tended to restrain themselves in

Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA8

their relations with one another so as to not endanger regional cooperation, among others by holding firmly to the principle of not interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

In its development, which will be discussed further later on, ASEAN as an institution has also been successful in building norms, values, and rules that bind all member states to avoid using force while also advancing peaceful avenues in resolving conflict.

3. ASEAN as a security buffer

For Indonesia, ASEAN is also seen as a security buffer, since being surrounded by friendly neighbours meant the potential of external threats to Indonesia would come from further away from Indonesia’s territory. If there is an external attack, say from the north, the effects of it will be felt outside of Indonesia’s territory first, thus giving Indonesia more time to strengthen its defensive capabilities. Just as important, although differences in perspectives exist, the founding ASEAN members during the Cold War were able to stand united against a common threat, such as the threat of communism.

The end of the Cold War and the expansion of ASEAN membership to comprise ten member states, some of them communist, does not diminish the role of ASEAN as a buffer against external threats to Indonesia. Indonesia and the other members have already started to build a “security community” whereby the likelihood of warfare within the ASEAN region

becomes even more diminished, so that the potential for external threat still comes from outside of ASEAN. However, the rising differences in perspectives regarding threats among ASEAN member states have resulted in new complications to unifying the position of ASEAN member states in confronting external challenges, as can be seen from the recent South China Sea issue. This will be discussed further later.

4. ASEAN contributes to the development of an autonomous regional order

When ASEAN was founded, Indonesia was the only ASEAN member state that was part of the Non-Aligned Movement, whereas the others were part of a military alliance with either the United States (the Philippines and Thailand) or with the United Kingdom (Malaysia and Singapore). With a free and active foreign policy doctrine, Indonesia has from the beginning believed that developing and newly-independent countries must be able to act autonomously in the international community and not merely place itself as a follower of the superpower countries. In the Southeast Asian region, Indonesia wanted the regional order to to be neither controlled nor dominated by outside powers, but rather, that it be determined by the nations within the region itself. In this regard, whether through the confrontation policy which was aimed at denying the continuation of British colonial influence, or the regional cooperation policy which could strengthen the unity of regional members in confronting external threats, Indonesia essentially had the same goal, which is to work towards the strategic autonomy of Southeast Asia.


Through ASEAN, Indonesia endeavoured to insert the values of a free and active foreign policy as well as non-alignment to the other member states, among others by inserting a statement in the Bangkok Declaration of 1967 that the presence of foreign military bases is temporary in nature and could not be used to threaten other ASEAN countries. Indonesia also played a key role in giving birth to the declaration which states that Southeast Asia is a “Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality” or ZOPFAN at the first extraordinary meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers in Kuala Lumpur in 1971.

In ASEAN’s development in the years since then, Indonesia has always been at the forefront in fighting for increased regional security as well as for raising ASEAN’s capability to be the main actor in developing an autonomous regional order. It is important to note that, with all the various headways that have been made in the political and defence cooperation lately, ASEAN no longer only tries to maintain a Southeast Asian regional order that is autonomous from external domination, but has also played an active role in pushing for the formation of a wider regional architecture with ASEAN as its axis.

5. ASEAN plays an important role in increasing the international bargaining power of its members

ASEAN has received wide acclaim as one of the most successful regional organizations. ASEAN’s success in fostering regional cooperation is regarded by many as second only to the European Union. Many countries and organizations, whether international

or regional, have or intend to have a close relationship with ASEAN. All of these not only increase the allure and bargaining power of the ASEAN region as a whole in vying for common interests, but also the bargaining power of its member states in fighting for their interests with third parties. In many cases, one or two ASEAN member states facing tough negotiations with external parties have successfully used the solidarity of ASEAN to achieve their specific objectives.

6. ASEAN increases the international credibility of Indonesia.

There are those who view that ASEAN has confined Indonesia in a golden cage which has constrained Indonesia from acting as freely as before it joined ASEAN. By running a low-profile foreign policy and tending to put forward ASEAN first, criticism has arisen that Indonesia is perceived to be “no longer count” and has lost its prestige. In fact, the opposite is true.

The success or failure of ASEAN is very much dependent on the ability of its member states in managing this regional organization, where Indonesia is its largest member, whether seen by the size of the country’s territory, the size of its population, or from its GDP. From the beginning, Indonesia has been regarded as the primus inter pares or first among equals in ASEAN, whether by its own members or by external parties. Although all member states have the same status, it cannot be denied that Indonesia is ASEAN’s natural leader and is expected to always play the role well and consistently for the sake of ASEAN’s development. If Indonesia cannot play the role of ASEAN’s natural leader, as


when Indonesia was faced by a multidimensional crisis at the end of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, then the rest of ASEAN will feel its consequences.

The position and role of Indonesia within ASEAN, a dynamic economic region with more than 600 million population, is an integral part of the growth of Southeast Asia as a whole. In its role as part of ASEAN, which enjoys international recognition, Indonesia’s credibility has also increased in its wider international interactions. It is also important to note that membership in ASEAN has not held Indonesia back nor that of any other countries from playing an active role outside of the organization. On the contrary, ASEAN can give a stronger foundation for Indonesia to act as Southeast Asia’s main representative on the international stage.

7. ASEAN provides a regional umbrella for bilateral military cooperation between ASEAN members.

ASEAN is not a platform for regional military cooperation. Besides the existence of fundamental differences in the views of ASEAN members regarding military pacts, which Indonesia opposes, an ASEAN military cooperation was at the beginning perceived to be dangerous to the region as it would invite the suspicion of external parties. However, although military cooperation is outside the scheme of ASEAN cooperation, from the beginning, military circles have regarded the establishment of cooperation as important to foster trust and prevent the emergence of open conflict among ASEAN members, considering that there

are many bilateral issues that have yet to be resolved. In order to do that, the militaries of ASEAN member states have been very active in forming cooperation since the beginning of the regional organization, such as by conducting joint exercises, whether bilateral or trilateral. The existence of ASEAN also facilitates intensive military relations and gives coherence to the said various bilateral and trilateral activities.

ASEAN’s development in the coming year, along with fundamental changes to the global and regional order, among others the end of the Cold War and the increase in transnational threats and challenges, have encouraged the inclusion of military cooperation into the ASEAN framework, as can be seen by the creation of the ASEAN’s Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM) and the ADMM Plus platform, where the latter involves parties from outside the region. In order to increase ASEAN members’ capabilities in tackling the consequences of natural disasters, ASEAN has also conducted joint multilateral exercises, some of which have also seen friendly nations from outside of ASEAN being invited to participate.

Yet, there are still some sensitivities which complicates the formation of a multilateral ASEAN military cooperation. Joint military exercises between ASEAN member states are still conducted either bilaterally or trilaterally. Thus the existence of ASEAN is critical to facilitate and give a regional umbrella for military cooperation and exercises between member states.


8. ASEAN plays a role in supporting economic development

From the explanation above, it can clearly be seen that for Indonesia, the main reason for ASEAN’s formation and the strengthening of regional cooperation was in the realm of politics and security. While the focus of ASEAN’s cooperation was in the realm of the economy, it must be admitted that Indonesia was not that eager to support free trade, let alone ASEAN economic integration, which was deemed to be more beneficial to other countries given that Indonesia has the largest market and that its products are not as competitive as those from some other member states.

That being said, ASEAN has given a crucial contribution towards Indonesia’s economic development, whether directly or indirectly. Indirectly, ASEAN supports Indonesia’s economic development in two ways. First, by promoting regional security, peace, and stability, Indonesia does not need to allocate too much of its resources towards maintaining defence and security of a such a large territorial border so that Indonesia’s limited resource could instead be used to develop other, more productive areas. It is interesting to note that the military-dominated New Order gave more priority to economic development rather than the armed forces as it was deemed that this strategy was more suited towards increasing national resilience, the threats to which came largely from the problems of domestic poverty and inequality.

Second, as previously explained, Indonesia’s involvement in ASEAN also played a role in attracting investment and economic

aid from Western countries and Japan, primarily during the Cold War. The indirect role ASEAN played for national economic development continues to this day. With regional peace and stability, the development of Indonesia’s defensive capabilities is determined more by its economic capabilities rather than the other way around that the demands for national defence would be at the expense of economic development.

During the succeeding developments, ASEAN also directly helped the economic development of its member states, including Indonesia. With the ten ASEAN member’s joint population of over 600 million people, ASEAN’s economic scale became far larger than before and has thus become more attractive to Indonesia. The expansion of ASEAN economic cooperation into a single investment area and production base may increase the allure of the region for foreign investors amidst heightened global competition after the appearance of large economic blocs and also new economic players from formerly-communist countries. ASEAN’s trade liberalization has also made the regional market more important for Indonesian exports than ever before. The technical and economic cooperation of ASEAN with dialogue partners have also brought benefits to member states as a whole.


Although all member states have the same status, it cannot be denied that Indonesia is ASEAN’s natural leader and is expected to always play the role well and consistently for the sake of ASEAN’s development.


Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA14 USS Cowpens underway in the South China SeaSource: Wikimedia Commons

ASEAN’s Role in Maintaining Regional Peace and Stability.

T he theory regarding the role of regional integration, particularly economic integration, in preventing open conflict between its member states started to develop following the regional integration of Western Europe. As is well known, European

history has been coloured by bloody conflicts for centuries, the largest of which were the First World War (1914-1918) and the Second World War (1939-1945) that resulted in the large-scale loss of both lives and properties of all parties involved. Two key European countries fought each other during World War II, Germany as the aggressor that attacked France, and in the end, almost all European countries were involved in the warfare to support either one.

In order to avoid a repeat of the war between the the mortal enemies of France and Germany, the leaders of both countries began to devise a strategy since the 1950’s that would bind the two countries in one framework of cooperation so that both sides would suffer great losses if that framework were to be severed because of conflict. The first initiative was to merge the iron and coal industries of Germany and France as these two materials were crucial in the production of weapons. In the next step, Germany and France became the first promoters of the European Economic Community (EEC), which attracted ever increasing members. Ultimately, in 1992, the EEC became the European Union (EU) through the Maastricht Treaty.

The main purpose of the EEC, and later the EU, was to prevent conflict and maintain peace among its member states by binding

them in what was called “functional linkages”. The wider and deeper these linkages were, the higher the cost that each member state must pay if divisions were to arise. Economic integration was deemed to be of key importance in this grand scheme as economic ties that promise welfare to all nations will create a large domestic constituent in each member state, which in turn will become loyal supporters of the continuity of that regional integration.

From the beginning, the regional organization which would later become the EU was designed to be a supranational organization which would have various powers that, at its core, reduced the sovereignty of its member states. This is because excessive nationalism was deemed to be the main cause of war between European states in the past. In other words, regional integration was intended to lessen the primacy of the nation-state with its exclusive and aggressive nationalism in the relationship between member states in Western Europe. The theory regarding regional integration, which has been dominant thus far, always points to the experience of Western Europe as its main reference point.

The idea to establish ASEAN as a platform for regional cooperation with the purpose of maintaining peace and preventing open conflict between its members was obviously inspired by the experience of regional integration in Western Europe. However, the situation in Southeast Asia is also vastly different, so that the design and target of ASEAN cooperation is also different. Although serving as an inspiration, the EU was not made as the model in ASEAN’s evolution. There is one fundamental


factor that differentiates Western Europe from Southeast Asia. In Western Europe, nationalism tends to be viewed negatively because in the past it frequently became the catalyst for wars between neighbouring countries. Whereas, in Southeast Asia and newly-independent countries generally, nationalism as a whole is viewed positively and needs to be maintained. For example, in Indonesia, nationalism is considered very important in uniting the various ethnicities, races, and religions to build a nation-state and to fight for independence against colonialism, and also to maintain the nation’s unity and integrity in the succeeding periods. It is, therefore, not surprising if the design of regional cooperation in Southeast Asia is not to build a supranational organization with a strong central institution or binding agreements with sanctions when there are violations, both of which fundamentally reduce the sovereignty of its member states. On the contrary, from the start, ASEAN was designed to support the development of nation-states, including strengthening the feelings of nationalism in order to increase the national resilience of its member states.

As was alluded to before, ASEAN was founded through a short declaration, the Bangkok Declaration, in 1967, with the main goal of encouraging economic partnership. During the first years of ASEAN, cooperation in the realms of politics and security was seen as too sensitive to the point it was never broached at all. It was hoped that economic partnership would increase understanding and develop trust between its members. Yet, in its evolution, it was economic partnership that precisely saw many hurdles for at least the first four decades of ASEAN’s existence. This was caused by the differences that came from being colonized by

different colonial governments for quite a long period of time, with the exception of Thailand, which thus made the interactions between Southeast Asian countries during the formative periods of ASEAN quite limited, whereas their economies tended to be competitive in nature and highly dependent on industrialized countries from outside the region.

As a result, ASEAN was not quite able to build those “functional linkages” that truly bound its members in a network of co-dependence, particularly economic dependence. That being said, the existence of ASEAN has directly contributed to the creation of a secure, peaceful, and stable region because ASEAN succeeded in forming the norms of behaviour for peaceful neighbourly relations.

Although at first there was no desire to build a binding regional integration, ASEAN gradually evolved from a very loose association into a regional organization that was moving towards the formation of an ASEAN Community. ASEAN’s journey can be divided into four main phases with distinctive characteristics. The changes from one phase to another were triggered by numerous factors, whether pressure from the strategic environment or by changes that happened within ASEAN member states. Besides the various sharp criticisms directed toward ASEAN, some of them reasonable, this regional organization has shown an adaptive capability worthy of pride.


I. 1967-1976

The first phase between 1967 until 1976 was a period of assessment. During this phase, there were no meaningful activities done in the name of ASEAN. After the Bangkok Declaration, each member state focused on internal consolidation. ASEAN was no more than a club for Foreign Ministers as no other parts of the governments were involved. No regional cooperation mechanisms were formed nor were any ASEAN Summits held. During this era, ASEAN was wholly a dependent variable of the political will of its member states which wanted to maintain peace so that they could pour their attention and limited resources to the development of their own countries. Internal weakness was perceived as the main source of existential threat for member states which could invite external intervention.

However, during these formative years, the values that would eventually become ASEAN’s characteristics started to develop, among them being the respect for the sovereignty and integrity of each member states, not intervening in each other’s domestic affairs, and decision-making through consensus. Compliance to these fundamental ASEAN values started to change the behaviour of its member states so that they were able to restrain themselves even when there were differences. It is also necessary to note that it was during this early period that ASEAN countries released its first joint political statement in 1971 that stated that the Southeast Asian region was a Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) as a reaction to the normalization of relationship between the United States (USA) and the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). The founding members of ASEAN, who were all anti-communist, and some of which at first had followed the USA’s policy of containing the PRC were surprised by this sudden change, and realized that they could not rely on external powers for Southeast Asia’s regional security. The ZOPFAN declaration marked an early attempt by ASEAN to achieve strategic autonomy in determining the regional order.

II. 1976-1991

The second phase lasted from 1976 until 1991, which was the period in which ASEAN institutions first started to develop. The USA’s defeat in the Vietnam War, signified by the fall of Saigon into communist hands, shocked all the ASEAN members to the extent that they convened for the first time a Summit in Bali in February 1976 which resulted in a number of important decisions. ASEAN countries deemed it necessary to strengthen cooperation in order to face the dangers of communism, the spectre of which was rising in Southeast Asia. Among other things, the Declaration of ASEAN Concord I (Bali Concord I) affirmed the basic ASEAN principles of respecting each other’s sovereignty and integrity as well as not interfering in each other’s internal affairs. It must be noted here that these principles were not the creation of ASEAN but referred to the UN Charter and the Dasasila Bandung (the Ten Bandung Principles). In order to strengthen ASEAN, there were also calls for various regional economic partnership projects and the formation of an ASEAN Secretariat.

Another major decision was the agreement on the Treaty of Amity


and Cooperation (TAC) which covers the whole of Southeast Asia. TAC prohibits the use of force or threats of force to resolve conflicts and all conflicts must be resolved peacefully. TAC was the first and primary regional code of conduct that formed the culture of peaceful inter-state relations within Southeast Asia, although there were no mechanisms that would force the signatories to obey the norms and values upon which they had agreed.

Essentially, the Bali Concord I stresses that Southeast Asian security and stability demands three main components: the existence of national resilience of each member state, the strengthening of regional resilience through increased regional cooperation, and the compliance to a regional code of conduct that would govern inter-state relations. During this period, a large part of ASEAN’s focus was on the resolution of the Cambodian conflict following the Vietnamese occupation, whereas economic cooperation did not achieve much progress. ASEAN’s attempt to pursue a resolution in the Cambodian conflict played a large part in heightening the profile and credibility of ASEAN as a regional organization that should be taken into consideration. It is also important to note that Indonesia played a primary role in facilitating the meeting between the conflicting parties in Cambodia so that Indonesia, along with France, chaired the negotiations in Paris which ended the Cambodian conflict in 1991. ASEAN’s character as a loose regional organization did not yet significantly change because the ASEAN Secretariat did not have any meaningful powers and was only headed by a Secretary General of the ASEAN Secretariat, rather than an ASEAN

Secretary General.

III. 1992-2002

The third phase lasted from 1992 to 2002 and was marked by the expansion of ASEAN into ten member states, by the start of a more serious regional economic partnership, and by the strengthening of the ASEAN Secretariat. The end of the Cold War opened a new era in ASEAN’s evolution. The increase in global economic competition, due to the birth of big economic blocs as well as the participation of ex-communist countries, or still communist countries, in the market economy, forced ASEAN countries to increase their competitiveness through strengthened economic cooperation. The large population of the ASEAN market, especially after the expansion of its membership, also began to be seen as a promising market. During the ASEAN Summit held in Singapore in 1992, ASEAN agreed to form an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and to empower the ASEAN Secretariat, which was now headed by an ASEAN Secretary General, to oversee AFTA’s progress. During this third era, ASEAN started to open accession to the TAC to countries outside Southeast Asia so that they could also follow the regional code of conduct. Another important achievement in furthering regional security was the ASEAN agreement to make Southeast Asia free from nuclear weapons through the South East Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (SEANWFZ) treaty which was signed in 1995. ASEAN also became more confident in playing the role of promoter of regional peace and stability more widely by convening the ASEAN Regional Forum, the first multilateral forum in the Asia


Pacific region that discussed regional security issues.

The aspiration of ASEAN founders that envisioned a regional association covering all Southeast Asian nations was accomplished by the inclusion of Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and lastly Cambodia into ASEAN, even though Laos and Vietnam are still communist countries. This was made possible because the basic principles of ASEAN as explained above did not require its member states to follow a particular political or economic system. This is different with the European Union whereby there are requirements for members to follow a democratic system of government and to respect human rights. The inclusion of the communist Southeast Asia nations that had originally conflicted with the ASEAN’s founding members clearly enhanced peace and stability in the region because they accepted the principles and norms of inter-state interactions that ASEAN had developed. Yet, at the same time, the increased diversity also made reaching a consensus more complicated when ASEAN wanted to boost the scope of cooperation or regional institutions so as to be more effective in facing new challenges.

IV. 2003-Present

The fourth phase in ASEAN’s evolution started from 2003 and continues today. The ASEAN Summit that was held in Bali in October 2003 resulted in the Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II) which agreed upon the formation of an ASEAN Community (AC) with three pillars comprising the ASEAN Political and Security Community (APSC), the

ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and the ASEAN Social and Cultural Community (ASCC), which would be established in 2020. This target was then moved forward, so that the AEC effectively began on January 1st 2016. The agreement to form the AC was a significant transformation in ASEAN’s character, although there still does not exist the desire to make ASEAN into a supranational organization with binding powers ala the European Union.

Indonesia had a key role in pushing for the establishment of the AC, particularly the APSC. Through the formation of the AC, ASEAN wants to transform from a loose association which only involved the governments into a regional organization that involved the whole of ASEAN’s society. ASEAN’s foundations were also strengthened through the agreement of the ASEAN Charter in 2007 and effective after all members had ratified it by 2008. The ASEAN Charter acts as ASEAN’s constitutional basis and for the first time also gave ASEAN a legal personality. Although the ASEAN Charter, which was ultimately agreed on after tough negotiations, did not have provisions regarding sanctions were there to be any violations of the main principles within the Charter, ASEAN has changed from a dependent variable into an independent variable that has its own dynamics. The agreements and rules made by ASEAN started to determine policies as well as the behaviour of its member states so that it is not easy anymore for its members to completely ignore them.

The agreement to build the AC with three mutually reinforcing pillars surely will widen and deepen the scope of regional


cooperation towards regional integration. The formation of the AEC in particular demands the coherence of national policies with regional targets which requires faster policy-making as well as strengthening the role of the ASEAN Secretariat. To accelerate the achievement of economic cooperation goals, ASEAN countries have agreed to loosen the principle of decision- making by consensus to a 10-X formula. Aside from the hope of advancing economic growth and the comprehensive prosperity of its members, the successful implementation of the AC with its three pillars will surely enhance functional linkages and create a significant complex interdependence between ASEAN members. This will give a strong foundation for the formation of a sustainable security community in Southeast Asia so that it is not dependent on the changing political impulses of its members from time to time.

The concept of a security community was originally used by Karl Deutsch to explain the direction of Western European regional integration, referring to the situation in which armed open conflicts between countries in the region become impossibility. Inter-state disputes that in the past frequently led to wars are transformed into administrative, diplomatic, or legal issues which could be resolved peacefully. Although it is not yet able to build strong functional linkages, ASEAN has proven that it can create a security community as the region has been freed from armed conflict between countries. Yet, the security community achieved in Southeast Asia is still far from ideal as there are still many potential for bilateral conflicts, such as overlapping territorial claims, which have yet to be completely resolved.

So far, ASEAN has only acted to defuse conflicts but has yet to function in helping to resolve conflicts. ASEAN countries still prefer a bilateral approach, and, if needed through the International Court of Justice, to resolve bilateral disputes rather than using ASEAN’s conflict resolution mechanisms. This shows a lack of trust towards the regional institution in resolving intra-ASEAN conflicts.

The formation of the APSC is aimed at enhancing regional partnership in political and security matters so as to increase ASEAN’s ability to face challenges and threats to security, be they traditional or non-traditional threats. The rise of transnational threats requires policies and collective action because it would be difficult for a country to handle it alone. The APSC is also aimed at augmenting the strategic autonomy of the Southeast Asian region in managing the regional order primarily against the interest of large countries from outside the region. To avoid the hegemony by one or two large countries in the strategic environment of Southeast Asia, ASEAN has tried to push for the formation of a new regional architecture that is inclusive and involves all stakeholders. In 2005, ASEAN succeeded in starting an annual high level East Asian Summit which now involves all the major countries of the Asia Pacific to discuss the many crucial issues that arise.

Another important element in the development of the APSC was the inclusion of universal values such as democracy and human rights into ASEAN as was emphasized by the ASEAN Charter. This is linked to the growing view in some parts of ASEAN


that the security community not only requires for peace among countries, but also peace within each member state. The many internal conflicts and violence that transpires within ASEAN nations, including violence carried out by the state, is still a threat to regional security and stability. An inclusive and participatory political system as well as a respect for human rights is deemed important in fostering a substantial and comprehensive security community.

The birth of the APSC concept was driven by Indonesia when it was ASEAN’s chair in 2003 and reflected the changes in Indonesia’s domestic politics since the beginning of the reformation era. Indonesia envisioned that aside from pushing for economic integration, the AC must also have shared values which would nurture the whole of the ASEAN community, which include respect for democratic values and human rights. Yet, the implementation of the APSC faced many challenges because broaching the issues of democracy and human rights, which are domestic issues, into the ASEAN forum is still hindered by the principle of not intervening in the domestic affairs of other member states.


Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA22 ASEAN Heads of State/GovernmentSource: Wikimedia Commons

Conclusion

F rom the above discussion, a glimpse can be seen of ASEAN’s 50 years of evolution from a loose regional association into the ever more integrated regional organization that is seen today. Aside from its many limitations, ASEAN has played a key role in

maintaining security, peace, and stability in Southeast Asia so as to form a security community. ASEAN has also played a crucial role in fostering good relations with the major powers, whether in developing regional strategic autonomy or as the main driver in shaping a wider regional architecture.

For Indonesia in particular, ASEAN has many strategic functions that far exceeds the functions of any other organizations in which Indonesia is a member, thus making ASEAN the cornerstone of Indonesian foreign policy. It must also be underlined that Indonesia is the natural leader of ASEAN and plays the main role in the evolution of ASEAN from a loose association to an ASEAN Community. Important documents which became the main foundation for regional cooperation, the Bali Concord I and Bali Concord II, were agreed upon when Indonesia was ASEAN’s chair.

However, lately there have been criticisms that ASEAN is unable to address various new challenges, whether they come from within or outside the region. This is actually a reflection of the high expectation that some have for ASEAN. Challenges from within are, among others, the disappointment many feel over the inability of ASEAN to take a stance, let alone meaningful action, when an ASEAN member state violates the principles

of democracy and human rights which clearly goes against the ASEAN Charter. This fact makes many parties, particularly those in civil society, sceptical towards ASEAN. ASEAN’s ability to face external challenges, especially from the rise of the PRC and an increasingly uncertain geopolitical condition, is also questioned; particularly when failure to reach consensus hampers ASEAN in making strategic decisions.

The potential for conflict in the South China Sea, where there are overlapping territorial claims between the PRC, Brunei, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, has emerged as the main regional security issue. ASEAN has succeeded in making the issue of the South China Sea into a regional issue and invited the PRC to jointly agree on the “Declaration of Conduct (DoC) of Parties on the South China Sea” in 2002 which prohibits the use of threats or military force as well as encouraging the use of peaceful means in order to maintain security and stability in the region. ASEAN is also in the midst of prompting the PRC to agree to a more binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.

Yet, the increasingly assertive policy of the PRC in maintaining its claim towards the whole of the South China Sea has created tensions with other member states as well as being seen as a threat to the wider regional stability and security. The South China Sea issue also has the potential to reduce the cohesiveness and effectiveness of ASEAN when there are ASEAN members that have deferred to the PRC’s pressure which may make consensus-making in ASEAN impossible. This has already happened in the 2012 ASEAN Summit when then host Cambodia, under pressure


from the PRC, prevented the South China Sea issue from being included in the draft of the Joint Communiqué, so that for the first time in history, ASEAN failed to issue a Joint Communiqué.

Is the 50th year of ASEAN the end of the 4th phase and is there a need to start thinking of the development of institutions and mechanisms for the next period? This issue must discussed seriously by ASEAN practitioners and observers so that the organization can still be relied upon to be the main determinant of Southeast Asian regional order and its surrounding region in the coming years. ASEAN is faced with difficult questions, among them how to further the values of democracy and human rights in Southeast Asia more consistently and seriously, while maintaining the principle of non-intervention as a basic ASEAN principle, as it is also the key to maintaining peace and stability in the region.

Another important question is whether it is time for ASEAN to reevaluate the principle of consensus in decision-making in the realms of politics and security, which have given veto rights to all members, so that important decisions that ASEAN must take are not held hostage by one dissenting member? There are already those that have suggested that a more flexible sort of consensus should be taken in the realms of politics and security, similar to that in the economic realm that uses the 10-X formula, because the credibility of ASEAN will diminish if it too often fails to reach an agreement on strategic issues.

Yet it must also be asked whether removing the consensus principle in politics and security matters, which are “high politics” and related to the core interests of a nation that are often not negotiable, will truly strengthen ASEAN or not? What would happen if Indonesia had a different view from all the other ASEAN members on an issue it feels strongly about on principle, but because consensus is no longer needed, ASEAN can still make a decision with majority-rule that overrides Indonesia’s objections? The case of Britain’s exit from the European Union because many of its citizens felt that their national interest was not protected in the European Union must surely be considered when talking about the future of ASEAN. ASEAN at the age of 50 seems to be at a crossroads and it is our shared responsibility to think about the right alternatives that can act as the foundation for ASEAN’s development in the coming 50 years.


It must also be underlined that Indonesia is the natural leader of ASEAN and plays the main role in the evolution of ASEAN from a loose association to an ASEAN Community.


Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA26 Portrait of Dewi Fortuna AnwarCredit: Christine Gneuss


Prof. Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, M.A. is the Chair of the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights at The Habibie Center. She is also Deputy for Government Policy Support to the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia. Besides that, she is a Research Professor and held the position of the Deputy Chairman for Social Sciences and Humanities at The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) from 2001-2010. She obtained her Ph.D from Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

The Habibie CenterJl. Kemang Selatan No.98,Jakarta Selatan 12560, Indonesia(P.) 62 21 781 7211(F.) 62 21 781 7212www.habibiecenter.or.idwww.thcasean.org

Our social mediaFacebook : The Habibie CenterTwitter : @habibiecenterInstagram : @habibiecenter

Documents

Indonesia, ASEAN and Regional Stabilityadmin.thcasean.org/assets/uploads/file/2017/03/Indonesia,_ASEAN... · Indonesia, ASEAN. and Regional Stability. ... being ASEAN’s contribution