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).