Building interdependence in APEC

Building interdependence in APEC

The following article is based on an interview with noted
political scientist Dewi Fortuna Anwar in connection with the
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

Question: What is the nature of the alliance between member
countries in the European Union and how do you see it in APEC?

Answer: In classic diplomacy, war prevention is achieved
through good relations between state leaders. This changed after
World War II when people were convinced that good relations
should be built based on a complex interdependent system. And
that those relationships do not have to start from senior
political ranks which always implies security. Cooperation among
nations then began with politicians in the fields of economy,
social, cultural, science and technology. Decisions in lower
political circles are very easy to make and once ideas take root
the cooperation spills over into other areas. An example of this
is the merger of France and Germany's steel and coal industry
after World War II. This is the process Europe has gone through,
the spilling over of economic cooperation into politics. This is
the theory of partial linkage. In APEC it is clear that there is
no intention for integration other than to start building a
complex interdependence through economic cooperation.

Q: What is the essence of this kind of relationship?

A: If APEC members get economic benefit, each member will have
a stake in the interdependent system being formed. Hence there is
goodwill among all members and this will change international
politics from a zero sum game to a positive sum game. If we
establish trade relations with China, for example, it would be
impossible to carry out if politically we are hostile towards the
Chinese government. The same goes with other countries. A
negative relationship in politics will spill over to economic
sectors. And the reverse is true.

Q: Could you give an example?

A: The prolonged trade feud between the United States and
Japan can not reach a breaking point because they have very good
political relations. Suppose Japan had not been an ally of the
U.S. during the Cold War, then the U.S. would not have sanctioned
Japan.

A better example is Indonesia's relations with Japan compared
to those with China. Japan once colonized Indonesia and yet our
relations with Japan are better than with China. China never
tried to colonize us and the only thing that can actually be
pinpointed as straining our relations with China is the fact that
we are ethnically and culturally different and we are reminded of
the 1965 communist abortive coup. So the reasons are amorphous in
character and yet we feel so remote from China because there were
no trade relations for a long time. Normalization with China was
realized only after the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce Kadin made
an attempt to forge direct trade with the country. And this
economic interest has gradually overcome reservations in the
military and intelligence bureaus. Hence the essence of
cooperation in APEC is that it will eventually create a spillover
into political and security spheres.

Q: How to achieve long-term relationships between APEC members
now that we are fully aware of the many short-term risks?

A: Yes, it is difficult to accomplish and maybe it is more
difficult to accomplish in a democratic state than in an
authoritarian state. A weak government which is vulnerable to a
vote of no confidence has difficulties (in achieving long-term
goals). In our case a Keppres (presidential decision) for an open
market will do. There should be cross subsidization in which
groups benefiting from the decision give contributions to those
which do not and this can only be managed by the government
through a tax system or the like. Huge conglomerates that have
enjoyed protection so far may resent it but national interests
should come first.

Q: How do you see the existence of the East Asia Economic
Caucus vis-a-vis APEC?

A: I think Indonesia is benefiting from the existence of EAEC.
Why? Because Indonesia can afford to look moderate, and Jakarta
is seen by Washington as being very moderate and it likes us very
much. At the same time there is someone very vocal out there who
churns out issues which Indonesia likes to see aired, but due to
its regional position refrains from airing itself. Hence Mahathir
(Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad) is seen as a bad cop
and Indonesia a good cop. But despite his anti-Western rhetoric
we also know that Mahathir keeps trade and investment with
Western countries going even at a higher pace than Indonesia.

Now, what is the fate of EAEC? Well it is a bit ambiguous,
nobody really knows what EAEC is. It depends very much on the
behavior of developed countries. I think EAEC could become our
trump card in our dealings with the Western countries within
APEC. So far we don't have to be vocal as we are benefiting from
what Malaysia is doing.

Q: The United States is planning to bring up the human rights
issue. Do you think perceptions on human rights still differs
among APEC members?

Q: Not only among APEC members, I think different perceptions
on the issue disappeared in 1993 when the convention on the
universality and indivisibility of human rights was signed and
Indonesia was one of the signatories.

Hence there is now no dispute on whether economic-socio-
cultural rights are more important than civil political rights,
for example, but in reality the implementation of the rights
still take different forms.

As a political observer I think the increasing involvement of
Indonesia on the international scene will result in some kind of
moral pressure on Indonesia to conform to internationally
accepted human rights laws. A closeness to countries in or
outside APEC, especially those with better human rights records,
will give an exemplary example and will increase sensitivities in
our society toward our lack of progress in certain areas.

Q: Do you see any relation between our society's sensitivity
of the issue and international pressure?

A: I think there is a link between international pressure and
domestic demand. During the Cold War period when international
cooperation was not as good as it is today, human rights
activists were easily branded communists and punished without any
concern from the international community except NGOs like Amnesty
International, Asia Watch and others. In the past as long as the
U.S. state department thought that the government of Indonesia,
of Pinochet, of Marcos, of the Shah of Iran followed the policy
of anti-communism, it was alright. It didn't really matter
whether they were democratic or not. When the international world
changes, attention is increasingly focused on issues like human
rights and democracy. At this time domestic demands which have
always been there get a second wind and form a link with
international pressure. (hbk)

Window: EAEC could become our trump card in our dealings with the
Western countries within APEC.