Panmunjom Agreement: The Role of ASEAN behind the Pacified Peninsula

September 1, 2018/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un sign the Panmunjom Agreement on Friday. Photo courtesy of Inter-Korean Summit Press Corps/UPI

Rafyoga Irsadanar

A new stage of peacemaking had progressed in the Korean Peninsula as Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in declared that there will be no more war in the region. This great momentum of peace among the President of Republic of Korea and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea happened during 2018 Inter-Korean Summit in “Peace House” at Panmunjom on April 27^th. Under the “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula”, both parties agreed to denuclearize Korean Peninsula and to conduct more talk with the United States in officially bringing Korean War to a permanent end.

A great advancement of perpetual harmony between North and South Korea, indeed, involved many external parties in pacifying the tension. Even though the security issues in the Korean Peninsula mainly spotlighted the credit to East Asian countries (Japan, China and two Koreas) and the United States, the contribution of ASEAN as the neighboring regional power could not be easily overlooked.

ASEAN- Two Koreas Warm Relationship: A Strong Bargain

It is undeniable that ASEAN itself is still struggling in building its firm institutional power in managing their own region, therefore, at some point, one may doubt ASEAN role in putting North and South Korea back into a constructive negotiation. However, what matters in the negotiation is ASEAN strategic position in convincing both parties to express their cooperative endeavor. It is important to note that ASEAN has a strong political capital to begin with.

By default, ASEAN and the Koreans have a strong bond in various aspects. North Korea, despite its isolative tenet, surprisingly has progressive political and economic relations with ASEAN. Not only North Korea has diplomatic relations with all ASEAN member states, North Korea also actively participated in ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to foster the security stability in Asia-Pacific. Economically, from 2000 to 2006 North Korea’s trade with Southeast Asian nations was able to reach 12 percent of the country whole balance. Simultaneously, South Korea and ASEAN obviously have a firm both political and economic cooperation as well. Besides the fact that South Korea and ASEAN regularly held ministerial and bilateral summits, ASEAN is Korea’s second largest trading partner under the ASEAN-Korea Free Trade Agreement (AKFTA). These warm ties of ASEAN and the conflicting parties are the main ASEAN decisive bargain in persuading the two Koreas to peace.

ASEAN Regional Forum

The prominent relationship of ASEAN and two Koreas has escalated the urgency of ASEAN involvement as South Korea recognized ASEAN as the “fifth power”. The robust economic ties between ASEAN and North Korea also caused Trump Administration demanding ASEAN to cut the trade and financial aids to pressure North Korea, proving ASEAN importance to North Korea. However, in engaging to the issue, ASEAN took a softer approach which is making the best of the existing platform, ASEAN Regional Forum, to be a constructive peaceful talk among conflicting parties in regards to North Korea assertive actions. There are two interconnected reasons why this is exclusive as ASEAN role in pacifying the Peninsula tension:

First, ASEAN Regional Forum is the only multilateral platform where both South and North Korea are encountered to each other in regards to security issues after the failure of Six-Party Talks. This means, ASEAN is the only actor who could bridge the states in Asia-Pacific with North Korea in regards to denuclearization through an official interstate channel. As the aftermath of ARF 2017 Manila, this ASEAN-initiated forum could gather the interest of all its member state to positively and legitimately demand North Korea, as ARF member, to reconsider its nuclear projects since it threatened Asia-Pacific stability. In addition, ARF initial trajectory in welcoming North Korea membership in 2000 was to engage with North Korea softer approach instead of isolating them, as it also appear as the turning point of Inter-Korean Relations at that time, ASEAN Chairman on that period Surin Pitsuwan stated. Hence, ASEAN contribution in providing the peace talk circuit should be credited to this context.

Second, not only ASEAN could provide the progressive platform, but also has a great potential to sustain it subsequently as a mediating actor. This optimism arises as ASEAN could appear as a friendlier partner toward North Korea. For North Korea, ASEAN is the easier counterpart to talk to compared to the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia.

North Korea trust toward ASEAN could be seen as ASEAN (and a couple of South Asian countries) is the only regional arena where North Korea engaging the most, proven by the number of its envoys sent to ASEAN (added with India and Bangladesh). North Korea admitted that this high level of interaction with ASEAN was caused by its “traditional friendship” established among them. This “traditional friendship” between North Korea and ASEAN was nurtured as North Korea could find its socialist-communist counterparts in ASEAN such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Not to mention its strong connection with Indonesia socialist-friendly regime under President Soekarno also appeared as the additional value of the relationship. Therefore, no wonder that ASEAN is currently seen as a potential actor to maintain the conductivity of the peacemaking as ASEAN is recognized as the one who could communicate with North Korea best.

From these metrics, we can see that trust is the main spearhead that made ASEAN-Koreans friendship possible to sustain. To maintain the maneuvers progressive, this article suggests that ASEAN should maintain its neutrality and strengthen its non-intervention tenet. These two parameters are vital to gain the trust of all parties since it will shape ASEAN as a truthful ally to cooperate with. Also, the non-intervention principle may also show South and North Korea that ASEAN is open to all values, proven by its commitment to not pushing any of its member state against their own identity.

The writer is a Research Intern at the ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

Latest Articles

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
Redefining Commodities in International Trade: ASEAN Blue Carbon Initiative and Its Role in Navigating Climate Crisis in the Southeast Asia RegionDecember 18, 2023 - 12:05 am
Korea-Indonesia Cooperation Forum in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic RelationsDecember 6, 2023 - 3:53 am
NACT Country Coordinators Meeting and Annual Conference 2023October 16, 2023 - 4:48 pm

Facebook

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

Panmunjom Agreement: The Role of ASEAN behind the Pacified Peninsula

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US