Indonesian leadership vital as ASEAN looks to future

Indonesian leadership vital as ASEAN looks to future

Jusuf Wanandi, Jakarta

Indonesia, as the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) for 2003-2004, has made some major achievements,
clearly showing that she can focus on her foreign policy without
being distracted by domestic developments.

These achievements have also shown that foreign affairs
bureaucrats and diplomats, in cooperation with the foreign
affairs' intellectual community, can pull off something
substantial. Just witness how ASEAN practically stalled when
Indonesia failed to provide leadership following its economic
crisis in 1997.

Today Indonesia has a group of young diplomats who are well
educated and eloquent in English and have a remarkable sense of
purpose. Despite the crisis and budgetary constraints Indonesia
has been able to develop this solid and effective group. All
Indonesians should be proud of them and their achievements.

These words of praise are not only mine, but are also coming
from other countries. China's director general in charge for the
region recognized that Indonesia's leadership made it possible
for the Senior Officials Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum
(ARF) last April to reach a compromise on such difficult issues
as the problem of weapons proliferation in North Korea, the
membership of Pakistan in ARF and the democratization of Myanmar.

The results of the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, the ASEAN-Post
Ministerial Conference and the ARF in Jakarta a few weeks ago
were also widely regarded as excellent. In addition, the ASEAN
Secretariat, under its dynamic secretary-general Ong Keng Yong,
has become more proactive. There are now separate units at the
ASEAN Secretariat to take care of the ASEAN+3 process and to deal
with the ARF. Institutionalization has proceeded, as it indeed
should.

The ASEAN Community concept is a great idea, but needs to be
implemented credibly. ASEAN needs to move fast, although the
target date for its achievements is 15 years away. As the Hanoi
Plan of Action demonstrated, seven years were insufficient and
were quickly over before substantive results were achieved toward
the ASEAN Vision 2020.

The region should be ready for deeper regional economic
integration because the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) is
practically completed. The ASEAN Economic Community is a logical
extension of AFTA. However, to implement the agreement ASEAN
needs strong champions among its members.

The ASEAN Security Community (ASC) idea was Indonesia's
initiative and the country has proposed a plan of action with a
definitive time line to push it forward. The reactions from other
members of the association to the proposal were mixed. Some have
doubts about Indonesia's leadership, while others think she has
pushed the proposal too hard.

Some of the new members are not yet ready for such an
ambitious plan, because interagency cooperation involving their
defense and internal security agencies is inadequate. Others
believe that a lot is already undertaken bilaterally, and see
regional initiatives only as complementary. Still others have
found some of the proposals too intrusive and felt reluctant to
allow them to happen.

The foreign press in particular has been critical of Indonesia
without really understanding what the real issues are.

First, the ASEAN Security Community was proposed mainly for
the sake of the smaller members in order that they would feel
more secure in dealing with the larger members.

Second, the ambitious plan of action was proposed as an ideal
and Indonesia was ready to compromise to reach for a credible
program. Third, Indonesia wants to make sure that the program can
be implemented and thus it needs to be finalized during its
chairmanship.

Considering all this, the agreement on the ASC was not at all
disappointing for Indonesia. Of course, it would have been better
if the ideal proposals had been accepted. However, compromises
need to be made.

Except for the absence of the specific time line as proposed
by Indonesia, ASEAN has taken a great step forward. The agreement
gives ASEAN a stronger basis for promoting peace and stability in
the region and among the member countries for the next 15 years.
The agreed on plan of action is not exhaustive and can always be
expanded in the future. Indonesia's leadership in following
through on its initiative should be acknowledged.

Another important issue to be noted is the problem of
Myanmar's road to democracy. With the convening of a national
convention, Myanmar's leadership has made some of the movements
that it promised last year. But these moves remain inadequate.
They promised to involve all parties in the convention, and that
Aung San Suu Kyi and her party members would be released so they
could participate. However, this failed to occur.

This has seriously endangered ASEAN's credibility in the
international community. Myanmar's chairmanship of ASEAN in 2006
will be unacceptable without any change of policy on their side.
This is the moment where ASEAN and the international community
should cooperate to get Myanmar moving in the right direction.

However, ways need to be found to decouple this problem from
the ASEAN summits, including the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM).
These meetings take place at a crucial juncture in global
developments.

Europe and East Asia need each other to strengthen
international rules and institutions. If the problem of Myanmar
becomes an obstacle to this year's ASEM, East Asia may be
reluctant to continue with the cooperation. They already complain
that the cooperation has become a one-way street, with the Asian
side the only one interested in the process.

The danger is that the chance to cooperate to strengthen
multilateralism and U.S. involvement in the process could be
lost. While cooperation between the EU and ASEAN on Myanmar's
road to democratization is valid, it would be unacceptable to
couple this with ASEAN summits.

The writer is a cofounder and a member of the board of
trustees of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS).