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.