Will Indonesia's idea for an Asian peace treaty fly?

[Reashot Xigwin]

Trefor Moss says the Indonesian proposal for a peace treaty for the region would be a great idea - if only everyone wasn't so blinded by hatred
Thursday, 06 June, 2013

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa recently called specifically for a new "Indo-Pacific-wide treaty of friendship and co-operation". Photo: AFP

Everyone else in East Asia knows how to behave - with practised disdain for those around them. China hates Japan. Vietnam hates China. Everybody hates North Korea. North Korea hates everybody. Basically, we all know where we stand.

Indonesia used to play by the same rules: the cornerstone of its foreign policy was once the "Crush Malaysia" campaign. But those days are long gone. Now Jakarta goes its own way, calling for peace, of all things - not just in East Asia, but across the entire Indo-Pacific region (which also includes India and Pakistan, and they really hate each other).

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa recently called specifically for a new "Indo-Pacific-wide treaty of friendship and co-operation", which he says is needed to arrest "the all-too-familiar vicious cycle of tensions" the region finds itself trapped in.

He has a point. Asia is becoming freer, wealthier and more interconnected - but not friendlier. Marty is right about the need for a new treaty, because the agreements and associations we have aren't working.

And if anyone can make such a treaty fly, it's Indonesia. The region's other big players - especially China, Japan and the US - carry too much baggage; any proposals they make are received with suspicion. Indonesia, by contrast, has become the acceptable face of developing Asia: newly democratised, avowedly non-aligned, no longer intent on crushing anyone, and yet big enough to make a difference. So maybe Indonesia can make this treaty happen.

Unfortunately, liking Indonesia isn't the issue - the snag is everyone's dislike of everyone else. Marty says there are three problems that the new treaty needs to fix: the "trust deficit" between Asian states; unresolved territorial disputes; and managing change in the region.

The trust deficit will be hard to overturn when an expanding China constantly upsets its neighbours; when the US forges ahead with its strategic pivot to Asia; when Japanese leaders make crass remarks about wartime atrocities; and when members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations squabble at their own meetings.

Actually, the trust deficit looks like low-hanging fruit compared with the bitter thorns of Asia's territorial disputes. Take China's row with the Philippines over who owns Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea. The dispute is now in arbitration by a UN tribunal under to the terms of an international treaty, which both Beijing and Manila have ratified. That's a grown-up way to resolve an international dispute. Except that China is refusing to take part. It rejects the tribunal, even though it has signed a treaty that legally binds it to the process.

This tells us two things: there are those in Asia who have no intention of resolving their territorial disputes peacefully; and that, while Marty might get China to sign his new treaty, that doesn't mean China will do what it says.

Then there's managing change in the region. This is Asia - everything is changing: politics, economics, the environment, and most of all the structure of power. Everything, that is, except those age-old grudges that demand, with all the weight of history, that Marty's good idea won't deliver peace.

Trefor Moss is an independent journalist based in Hong Kong and a former Asia-Pacific editor of Jane's Defence Weekly. He can be followed on Twitter @Trefor1

Will Indonesia's idea for an Asian peace treaty fly? | South China Morning Post

BTW I still hate Malaysia

 

[iajj]

big powers carry baggage because they carry geopolitical weight. it is a dilemma of geopolitics, it is a tragedy of geopolitics. i sincerely applaud indonesians' goodheartedness in this initiative, but it won't appeal to the big powers' sense and self-perception of being big powers.

also, when china signed on to UNCLOS, it specifically exempted all its claimed territories from the latter's rules and tribunals (much like the arrogance of US, which dictated the terms of much of UNCLOS and just refused to even sign it, much less ratify it). again, big powers carry themselves in a way that makes them seem different from middle powers and as such marks them as big powers.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Indonesia's Grand Strategy
8 July 2013

Joshua Kurlantzick Talks Indonesian Foreign Policy
Joshua Kurlantzick, courtesy of CFR
Copyright

Joshua Kurlantzick

Indonesia's foreign policy priorities include strategically balancing in its relationships with China and the US, and also raising its international profile by working through ASEAN. In today's Questions and Answers feature, Josh Kurlantzick discusses Jakarta's current foreign policy agenda and how it might change if Joko Widodo prevails in the 2014 presidential election, as is widely expected.

By Joshua Kurlantzick for the ISN

It has been suggested that Indonesia does not have a discernible grand strategy. What do you make of this suggestion?

I don't think Indonesia really has a discernible grand strategy (if you are talking about a grand global strategy), other than raising the country’ international profile. This entails making sure that Jakarta is increasingly involved in international institutions as they expand to include the largest global economies and emerging powers, most notably the G-20. I think Indonesia does have a broad regional strategic outlook, particularly towards ASEAN.

One of the main objectives of Indonesia's foreign policy outlook is to balance its relations between China and the United States. How is this impacting upon Jakarta's relations with fellow ASEAN states?

I think that it is putting Indonesia in a difficult situation at the current time. Several fellow member-states, such as Singapore and Vietnam and the Philippines, are clearly tilting more closely towards the United States. They are also engaging in almost as confrontational behavior in the South China Sea as Beijing. This, in turn, puts Washington in a difficult position to act as the primary guarantor of security across the South China Sea region.

Indonesia would most certainly like to maintain its strategic balance between the United States and China. However, as the most powerful nation in ASEAN, Jakarta also does not want to see the organization devalued either on the regional or global stage. Accordingly, Indonesia needs to stand in line with its fellow member-states over the South China Sea dispute in order to show that ASEAN is a strong organization. This is despite Indonesia not having the same vested interests in the South China Sea as certain other ASEAN states.

In this respect, is Indonesia ideally placed to act as a mediator over the SCS disputes?

I think Indonesia is in a good place to act as a mediator, but remember, China has so far refused any type of mediation under a multilateral aegis. So perhaps no one is ideally suited to breaking the impasse, not even Indonesia.

Which sections of Indonesian society exercise the most influence over the development of the country’s foreign policy agenda?

Despite the decentralization of political and economic power to the provincial and sub-provincial levels, I think that Indonesia’s regional and ASEAN strategies are still being dictated by a small handful of opinion leaders in Jakarta. These undoubtedly include the President's office, a few think-tanks like CSIS Indonesia, leading media elites, and senior figures in the Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI), Indonesia’s armed forces.

Presidential elections are scheduled in Indonesia for next year. Do you think any of the potential candidates offer a change of direction in Indonesian foreign policy that may, in turn, result in something resembling a coherent grand strategy?

It’s difficult to say. If Joko "Jokowi" Widodo, the governor of Jakarta, runs he will almost certainly do so on an entirely domestic platform. His personal reputation as a clean politician and a break from previous Indonesian leaders is also likely to be an important factor. Widodo has almost no enunciated foreign policy - remember he has only been Jakarta governor a short while - and I think he would not even talk much about foreign policy on the campaign trail, as it's not his strength. Yet he is the obvious and overwhelming front-runner at this point, and right now I would expect him to be the next president. However, if he is elected it might allow more technocrats in the government to develop foreign policy, which could be a good thing.

Are there other potential candidates who have a better grasp of foreign policy standing in this election?

The Chairman of the Golkar Party, Aburizal Bakrie – among many others - has a better grasp of foreign policy. The same can also be said of Prabowo Subianto, who was previously married to former President Suharto’s daughter. But right now it doesn't look like they are going to win, since they are too linked to the old era of Indonesian politicians. I also think that it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will win in 2014, regardless of the fact that they have yet to announce a candidate. Basically, next year’s election is “Jokowi’s” to lose. However, he is a very savvy politician, despite exterior appearances.

---

Joshua Kurlantzick is a fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Mr. Kurlantzick was most recently a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he studied Southeast Asian politics and economics and China's relations with Southeast Asia, including Chinese investment, aid, and diplomacy.

Indonesia's Grand Strategy / ISN

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Do we need an Indo-Pacific treaty?
8 Jul 2013
By Natalie Sambhi

Indonesian FM Natalegawa at the conference ‘Intersections of Power, Politics and Conflict in Asia’ in June

Indonesian Foreign Minister Natalegawa has recently articulated his proposal for an Indo-Pacific Treaty at no less than three different conferences (including ‘Intersections of Power, Politics and Conflict in Asia’ in Jakarta in June) and it bears careful reading because it contains ambitious ideas.

To summarise his proposal, Natalegawa sees the Indo-Pacific region as beset by a deficit of ‘strategic trust’, unresolved territorial claims, and rapid transformation of regional states and the relationships between them. The potential for these factors to cause instability and conflict requires the region to develop a new paradigm, an Indo-Pacific wide treaty of friendship and cooperation, to encourage the idea of common security and promote confidence and the resolution of disputes by peaceful means. At present, Natalegawa has only provided the broad concepts behind the treaty but a precursor question is whether a treaty is really necessary?

Natalegawa argues that the Indo-Pacific region needs to be thought of as its own separate system. By having a treaty, regional states will start to think of themselves as members of a community responsible for common security. But the appeal of the idea depends on whether you consider multilateral agreements effective in encouraging member states to cooperate. Less powerful states in the Indo Pacific have few means to contribute to regional stability other than engaging more powerful states. In talking about managing the rapid transformation of regional states, Natalegawa espouses his idea of ‘dynamic equilibrium’ which entails ‘no preponderant power’. Rather than allow the region to be dominated by bilateral tension between powerful actors, Natalegawa argues their interests are inter-linked. The US and China, along with India and Japan are thus encouraged to see their actions in the context of ‘common security’.

The Indo-Pacific is an important geostrategic and economically significant area but it’s a long way from being a formal institution. Indonesia, a non-aligned state located at the geo-strategic centre of the system, might see itself as an obvious choice of broker for this treaty. However, the Indo-Pacific is, at best, a nascent ‘system’, and there’s no central body like ASEAN driving the process for this treaty. In absence of such a framework, it’s hard to see how Indonesia will be able to bring regional countries even to the negotiating table.

The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the East Asia Summit’s Bali Principles both had ASEAN providing the diplomatic management for negotiating these agreements. They too encourage member states to build ‘strategic trust’, renounce the use of force and settle disputes by peaceful means, as well as include norms like the promotion of ‘good neighbourliness, partnership and community building’. Yet, they’ve had limited effectiveness as a mechanism for action or conflict prevention. Almost all of the so-called ‘Indo-Pacific’ states belong to one or both of these agreements, but no multilateral system has yet demonstrated the ability to ensure that all states adhere to those norms.

In order to effectively tackle the region’s security challenges, including the rapid social and economic transformation of states and the friction this might bring, there needs to be a strong incentive to cooperate and a mechanism for conflict management. The proposed treaty, like the previous two, provides neither.

Security issues between ASEAN states show a clear preference for bilateral resolution. Most recently, smoke from burning forests in Sumatra last month blanketed Malaysia and Singapore in the worst haze since 1997, with severe risk to health. First Singapore then Malaysia sent their representatives to Jakarta to urgently discuss a solution with the Indonesian government. An agreement signed by ASEAN states in 2002 to tackle haze hasn’t been ratified by Indonesia. Instead, at an ASEAN–China Ministerial Dialogue in Brunei earlier this week, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia agreed to a trilateral process to manage fires and haze in future—the three states have a clear interest in cooperating on this issue. ASEAN can provide a forum to discuss the haze but, when push comes to shove, the actions of Southeast Asian states demonstrate a tendency to bypass the ASEAN framework.

Similarly, China’s assertive and uncooperative behaviour towards the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal is at odds with the TAC and Bali Principles. China’s made clear its preference for bilateral engagement with other territorial claimants and to avoid international courts. Without the most powerful states in the ‘Indo-Pacific system’ backing the treaty, norms (in this case, the expectation that states won’t resort to the use of force or coercion) won’t provide the restraint needed. States will continue to rely on traditional alliance partners for protection or to provide a balance to other aggressive actors.

Multilateral frameworks in parts of the Indo-Pacific have been most effective when they have formed for a clear purpose. As Victor Cha argues, coalitions have formed ‘among entities with the most direct interests in solving a problem’. I think the best we can expect for now is a complex network of overlapping agreements and groupings that form to solve clearly defined and immediate issues. Direct interests will yield definite action. The Indo-Pacific treaty could build trust in the long term and as a proposal for more order-building in a transformational Asia, it shows Indonesia trying to lead the way. But if the strategic outlook is as dire as Natalegawa describes, I’m doubtful a new treaty is what we’ll need to tackle some of the region’s most pressing security challenges.

Natalie Sambhi is an analyst at ASPI and editor of The Strategist. Image courtesy of Indonesian Foreign Ministry.

Do we need an Indo-Pacific treaty? | The Strategist

 

[Viet]

Trefor Moss says the Indonesian proposal for a peace treaty for the region would be a great idea - if only everyone wasn't so blinded by hatred
Thursday, 06 June, 2013

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa recently called specifically for a new "Indo-Pacific-wide treaty of friendship and co-operation". Photo: AFP

Everyone else in East Asia knows how to behave - with practised disdain for those around them. China hates Japan. Vietnam hates China. Everybody hates North Korea. North Korea hates everybody. Basically, we all know where we stand.

LOL well said. We hate each other too much. Actually history is the great wall diviving us.

BTW I still hate Malaysia

Why?

 

[Zero_wing]

So basically the problem is china anyone can tell you that

 

[Wholegrain]

So basically the problem is china anyone can tell you that

Problem? According to Malaysia there is no problem with China. But Malaysia has a big problem with the Philippines claiming Sabah.

The most right wing, Malay nationalist leader said China is not a threat to Malaysia.

Malaysia's Mahathir says China is no threat - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

Mahathir: China no threat to Malaysia

Koleksi Arkib Ucapan Ketua Eksekutif

Mahathir Mohamad

Cambodia and Malaysia have both rejected demands to turn ASEAN into an anti China alliance. Mahathir told the Americans to go buzz off when they asked Malaysia to adopt an anti China stance and America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it unpopular. Cambodia rejected all initiatives by Vietnam and the Philippines to bring up the south China sea dispute at ASEAN.

Some Ethnic minorities in Myanmar hate the Burmese government and love China and Chinese things instead. In Wa state the Wa people use Chinese language, currency, telecommunications and love Chinese culture while they hate everything Burmese. Their United Wa state army is backed by China. The Kachin, Karen and other minorities also hate the Burmese.

A single temple of a religion nobody in Cambodia or Thailand practices has led to bloodshed between the two countries.

Preah Vihear Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jhungary]

LOL well said. We hate each other too much. Actually history is the great wall diviving us.

Why?

That's probably because Indonesia and Malaysia fought an undeclared war during the 60s and Australian were somehow involved.....

 

[Rechoice]

Problem? According to Malaysia there is no problem with China. But Malaysia has a big problem with the Philippines claiming Sabah.

The most right wing, Malay nationalist leader said China is not a threat to Malaysia.

Malaysia's Mahathir says China is no threat - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

Mahathir: China no threat to Malaysia

Koleksi Arkib Ucapan Ketua Eksekutif

Mahathir Mohamad

Cambodia and Malaysia have both rejected demands to turn ASEAN into an anti China alliance. Mahathir told the Americans to go buzz off when they asked Malaysia to adopt an anti China stance and America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it unpopular. Cambodia rejected all initiatives by Vietnam and the Philippines to bring up the south China sea dispute at ASEAN.

Some Ethnic minorities in Myanmar hate the Burmese government and love China and Chinese things instead. In Wa state the Wa people use Chinese language, currency, telecommunications and love Chinese culture while they hate everything Burmese. Their United Wa state army is backed by China. The Kachin, Karen and other minorities also hate the Burmese.

A single temple of a religion nobody in Cambodia or Thailand practices has led to bloodshed between the two countries.

Preah Vihear Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tibetans, Uijgurs ... hatred Hans chinese, Shanghai_rens don't like Peking_rens and Xichuan-rens ... etc.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

So basically the problem is china anyone can tell you that

The treaty will act as an insurance & deterrence against possible conflict inter Asian countries. All China did is make us realize that Asia is not a friendly place to be right now. That's why some says we (Asia) need this treaty.

 

[Genesis]

Tibetans, Uijgurs ... hatred Hans chinese, Shanghai_rens don't like Peking_rens and Xichuan-rens ... etc.

right, that's like saying New yorkers don't like Boston so, US is done for. You drunk man.

Anyways, this is stupid. Indo at this point is way too small to make an impact, when in Asia there is the big three of China, Japan and South Korea.

Looking at how things are, the problem was never hatred, no way we hate each other more than the Europeans hate each other. They had thousands of years of war. Even now there is rivalry between them.

Why did it stop? IT wasn't a treaty, but a dominate power in the US emerging that stop the conflicts. IF Asia is to achieve peace, this needs to happen.

Why do I say need? China's eventual doubling and even tripling of Japan's economy is going to happen within two to three decades. By then, the rest of Asia combined would not be a match.

Even now, China's GDP pretty much can match most of Asia combined. And yet, you want us to play, not by the same rules, but by the rules that were made when we were hurting for just rice.

So how can we have peace.

This is like if a nerd gets muscles, and money and then still dates 3s or 4s instead of 10s. That's just not rational, and if you must, unfair.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

right, that's like saying New yorkers don't like Boston so, US is done for. You drunk man.

Anyways, this is stupid. Indo at this point is way too small to make an impact, when in Asia there is the big three of China, Japan and South Korea.

Looking at how things are, the problem was never hatred, no way we hate each other more than the Europeans hate each other. They had thousands of years of war. Even now there is rivalry between them.

Why did it stop? IT wasn't a treaty, but a dominate power in the US emerging that stop the conflicts. IF Asia is to achieve peace, this needs to happen.

Why do I say need? China's eventual doubling and even tripling of Japan's economy is going to happen within two to three decades. By then, the rest of Asia combined would not be a match.

Even now, China's GDP pretty much can match most of Asia combined. And yet, you want us to play, not by the same rules, but by the rules that were made when we were hurting for just rice.

So how can we have peace.

This is like if a nerd gets muscles, and money and then still dates 3s or 4s instead of 10s. That's just not rational, and if you must, unfair.

Its called "playing nice" with other country. A peaceful & stable Asia is in everyone best interest

True the Europeans hate each other, but it never escalate to an armed stance:

Japan slams 'coercive' Chinese naval action
Tension rises as Tokyo defence paper says Beijing has intruded on its territorial waters and invaded its airspace.

Japan slams 'coercive' Chinese naval action - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

What happen if its exploded into armed conflict will there even be an Asia left?

The Treaty will act as an insurance against future conflict:

Natalegawa argues that the Indo-Pacific region needs to be thought of as its own separate system. By having a treaty, regional states will start to think of themselves as members of a community responsible for common security. But the appeal of the idea depends on whether you consider multilateral agreements effective in encouraging member states to cooperate. Less powerful states in the Indo Pacific have few means to contribute to regional stability other than engaging more powerful states. In talking about managing the rapid transformation of regional states, Natalegawa espouses his idea of ‘dynamic equilibrium’ which entails ‘no preponderant power’. Rather than allow the region to be dominated by bilateral tension between powerful actors, Natalegawa argues their interests are inter-linked. The US and China, along with India and Japan are thus encouraged to see their actions in the context of ‘common security’.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...dea-asian-peace-treaty-fly.html#ixzz2YWeM5unT

 

[Genesis]

Its called "playing nice" with other country. A peaceful & stable Asia is in everyone best interest

True the Europeans hate each other, but it never escalate to an armed stance:

Japan slams 'coercive' Chinese naval action
Tension rises as Tokyo defence paper says Beijing has intruded on its territorial waters and invaded its airspace.

Japan slams 'coercive' Chinese naval action - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

What happen if its exploded into armed conflict will there even be an Asia left?

The Treaty will act as an insurance against future conflict:

the europeans never fought? What were the world wars then? a hug between friends? There are recent wars too if you want to look it up. Learning history won't kill you.

as to this treaty, treaties only work when someone can enforce it, but the day is soon that US will not be able to access Asia. China don't have to be stronger at the moment just enough to deny access. And guess what, that would make us the undisputed master of Asia.

You know what that means?

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

the europeans never fought? What were the world wars then? a hug between friends? There are recent wars too if you want to look it up. Learning history won't kill you.

as to this treaty, treaties only work when someone can enforce it, but the day is soon that US will not be able to access Asia. China don't have to be stronger at the moment just enough to deny access. And guess what, that would make us the undisputed master of Asia.

You know what that means?

LOL those are past wars. Now European country no longer engage in Inter Bellum with each other.

Did you even read the article? The treaty is still nascent. Indonesia don't have any problem with China being the undisputed master of Asia. We just adapt like we always do, but the new treaty will help with inter country cooperation & help build a stronger stable asia. That's the plan.

 

[Wholegrain]

Tibetans, Uijgurs ... hatred Hans chinese, Shanghai_rens don't like Peking_rens and Xichuan-rens ... etc.

I heard Northern and Southern Vietnamese don't like each other and ethnic minorities like Khmer Krom and Cham hate Kinh Vietnamese. Problem? even Vietnamese media blames "southwestern" girls for giving a bad reputation to the rest of the country.