Building interdependence in APEC<\/p>\n
The following article is based on an interview with noted
\npolitical scientist Dewi Fortuna Anwar in connection with the
\nAsia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.<\/p>\n
Question: What is the nature of the alliance between member
\ncountries in the European Union and how do you see it in APEC?<\/p>\n
Answer: In classic diplomacy, war prevention is achieved
\nthrough good relations between state leaders. This changed after
\nWorld War II when people were convinced that good relations
\nshould be built based on a complex interdependent system. And
\nthat those relationships do not have to start from senior
\npolitical ranks which always implies security. Cooperation among
\nnations then began with politicians in the fields of economy,
\nsocial, cultural, science and technology. Decisions in lower
\npolitical circles are very easy to make and once ideas take root
\nthe cooperation spills over into other areas. An example of this
\nis the merger of France and Germany's steel and coal industry
\nafter World War II. This is the process Europe has gone through,
\nthe spilling over of economic cooperation into politics. This is
\nthe theory of partial linkage. In APEC it is clear that there is
\nno intention for integration other than to start building a
\ncomplex interdependence through economic cooperation.<\/p>\n
Q: What is the essence of this kind of relationship?<\/p>\n
A: If APEC members get economic benefit, each member will have
\na stake in the interdependent system being formed. Hence there is
\ngoodwill among all members and this will change international
\npolitics from a zero sum game to a positive sum game. If we
\nestablish trade relations with China, for example, it would be
\nimpossible to carry out if politically we are hostile towards the
\nChinese government. The same goes with other countries. A
\nnegative relationship in politics will spill over to economic
\nsectors. And the reverse is true.<\/p>\n
Q: Could you give an example?<\/p>\n
A: The prolonged trade feud between the United States and
\nJapan can not reach a breaking point because they have very good
\npolitical relations. Suppose Japan had not been an ally of the
\nU.S. during the Cold War, then the U.S. would not have sanctioned
\nJapan.<\/p>\n
A better example is Indonesia's relations with Japan compared
\nto those with China. Japan once colonized Indonesia and yet our
\nrelations with Japan are better than with China. China never
\ntried to colonize us and the only thing that can actually be
\npinpointed as straining our relations with China is the fact that
\nwe are ethnically and culturally different and we are reminded of
\nthe 1965 communist abortive coup. So the reasons are amorphous in
\ncharacter and yet we feel so remote from China because there were
\nno trade relations for a long time. Normalization with China was
\nrealized only after the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce Kadin made
\nan attempt to forge direct trade with the country. And this
\neconomic interest has gradually overcome reservations in the
\nmilitary and intelligence bureaus. Hence the essence of
\ncooperation in APEC is that it will eventually create a spillover
\ninto political and security spheres.<\/p>\n
Q: How to achieve long-term relationships between APEC members
\nnow that we are fully aware of the many short-term risks?<\/p>\n
A: Yes, it is difficult to accomplish and maybe it is more
\ndifficult to accomplish in a democratic state than in an
\nauthoritarian state. A weak government which is vulnerable to a
\nvote of no confidence has difficulties (in achieving long-term
\ngoals). In our case a Keppres (presidential decision) for an open
\nmarket will do. There should be cross subsidization in which
\ngroups benefiting from the decision give contributions to those
\nwhich do not and this can only be managed by the government
\nthrough a tax system or the like. Huge conglomerates that have
\nenjoyed protection so far may resent it but national interests
\nshould come first.<\/p>\n
Q: How do you see the existence of the East Asia Economic
\nCaucus vis-a-vis APEC?<\/p>\n
A: I think Indonesia is benefiting from the existence of EAEC.
\nWhy? Because Indonesia can afford to look moderate, and Jakarta
\nis seen by Washington as being very moderate and it likes us very
\nmuch. At the same time there is someone very vocal out there who
\nchurns out issues which Indonesia likes to see aired, but due to
\nits regional position refrains from airing itself. Hence Mahathir
\n(Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad) is seen as a bad cop
\nand Indonesia a good cop. But despite his anti-Western rhetoric
\nwe also know that Mahathir keeps trade and investment with
\nWestern countries going even at a higher pace than Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Now, what is the fate of EAEC? Well it is a bit ambiguous,
\nnobody really knows what EAEC is. It depends very much on the
\nbehavior of developed countries. I think EAEC could become our
\ntrump card in our dealings with the Western countries within
\nAPEC. So far we don't have to be vocal as we are benefiting from
\nwhat Malaysia is doing.<\/p>\n
Q: The United States is planning to bring up the human rights
\nissue. Do you think perceptions on human rights still differs
\namong APEC members?<\/p>\n
Q: Not only among APEC members, I think different perceptions
\non the issue disappeared in 1993 when the convention on the
\nuniversality and indivisibility of human rights was signed and
\nIndonesia was one of the signatories.<\/p>\n
Hence there is now no dispute on whether economic-socio-
\ncultural rights are more important than civil political rights,
\nfor example, but in reality the implementation of the rights
\nstill take different forms.<\/p>\n
As a political observer I think the increasing involvement of
\nIndonesia on the international scene will result in some kind of
\nmoral pressure on Indonesia to conform to internationally
\naccepted human rights laws. A closeness to countries in or
\noutside APEC, especially those with better human rights records,
\nwill give an exemplary example and will increase sensitivities in
\nour society toward our lack of progress in certain areas.<\/p>\n
Q: Do you see any relation between our society's sensitivity
\nof the issue and international pressure?<\/p>\n
A: I think there is a link between international pressure and
\ndomestic demand. During the Cold War period when international
\ncooperation was not as good as it is today, human rights
\nactivists were easily branded communists and punished without any
\nconcern from the international community except NGOs like Amnesty
\nInternational, Asia Watch and others. In the past as long as the
\nU.S. state department thought that the government of Indonesia,
\nof Pinochet, of Marcos, of the Shah of Iran followed the policy
\nof anti-communism, it was alright. It didn't really matter
\nwhether they were democratic or not. When the international world
\nchanges, attention is increasingly focused on issues like human
\nrights and democracy. At this time domestic demands which have
\nalways been there get a second wind and form a link with
\ninternational pressure. (hbk)<\/p>\n
Window: EAEC could become our trump card in our dealings with the
\nWestern countries within APEC.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/building-interdependence-in-apec-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}