ASEAN Political-Security Community: The Prospect of South China Sea

December 20, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Muhammad Ammar Hidayahtulloh

Best 10 Author of Call for Essay: ASEAN Community Post 2015

ASEAN is located strategically at the crossroads of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, and its history has been shaped as much by the influence by great civilizations as the impact of great powers. Nevertheless, even the ASEAN has the strategic geographic position; the conflict or dispute within the region is unavoidable that will threat the peace and stability in the region. It’s related to the geographic position of ASEAN which close to the disputable South China Sea as one of the most important waterways in the world ever since its discovery of the source of oil and gasses.

The South China Sea (SCS) becomes the scene of occurring territorial dispute between China and several ASEAN member states; the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and Vietnam, moreover the involvement of United States of America within the dispute has been increasing the tension in the region. Every claimant states have their own claim and strategy to assert their claim toward their sovereignty in the South China Sea. China marked South China Sea claims in 1947 which simplifying the border to nine-dashes that become the historical basis for its territorial claims up to this day. The rest claimant states are ASEAN member states are also taking different claims. Vietnam claims all of both the Spratly and Paracel island chains in the South China Sea. Malaysia claims over the islands and features in the Southern Spratly, and has occupied five of them since 2009. Philippines claims over 50 features in the Spratly and occupies nine of them, where its military presence is second only to that of Vietnam. Brunei claims only two features in the Spratly islands, submerged formations called Louisa Reef and Rifleman Bank, and extends its EEZ around the feature and well into the southern section of the South China Sea. The United States also involving its military power in South China Sea in order to protect the rights freedoms, and lawful uses of sea and airspace guaranteed to all.

ASEAN has outlined its position toward the SCS dispute, it has firstly signed by the agreement between ASEAN and China agreed upon ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) in 2002 which approve ASEAN and China commitment to hand in hand maintain the SCS, furthermore DOC strongly support the adoption of Code of Conduct in SCS. Unfortunately, attributable to the overlapping claim on SCS at the moment the ASEAN’s position toward the South China Sea dispute is blurry. The difference stances among ASEAN countries on SCS dispute engender the disunity among ASEAN which leads the rough road in maintaining a unified position on a Code of Conduct. In 2012, ASEAN Foreign Minister Meeting failed to issue joint statement for the first time, because the Cambodia didn’t agree and it was not reach the consensus. Lately in 2016, Cambodia refused to include the verdict of Permanent Court of Arbitration toward the SCS dispute. Cambodia position is hardly affected by its close relation with China. Heretofore, it such a big dilemma when Cambodia and other ASEAN countries takes uncooperative position which supporting China and diminishing the ASEAN unity.

By 2015, ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) has established as the community to ensure the peace and stability in the region by deepening and expanding the cooperation in political and security sectors in responding the regional and international challenges, so does in SCS dispute. APSC has three key characteristics, a rules-based community of shared values and norms; a cohesive, peaceful, stable and resilient region with shared responsibility for comprehensive security; and a dynamic and outward-looking region in an increasingly integrated and interdependent world. The well implementation of these three characteristics by all ASEAN countries, the inter-state trust, solidarity and integrity can be reached which will make ASEAN become a strong regional unity. Aftermath, ASEAN countries will prefer in the side with fellow ASEAN countries rather than outside powers for pragmatic reasons.

After APSC has well-achieved to create strong regional unity; under the framework of APSC, the South China Sea is the sea of peace, prosperity and cooperation which encourage the dialogue, consultation, and negotiation regarding the SCS dispute bilaterally between ASEAN and China intensively to meet the agreement among the claimant states by adopting the Code of Conduct. The ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting (AMM), ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM), ADMM-Plus, and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) will much contributive to support to meet the agreement among all claimant states of SCS. Furthermore, the statement of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang at the East Summit in 2015 to cooperate collectively maintains the South China Sea can be used as the weapon to force China to commit for maintaining the dispute.

Thus, ASEAN must be stand together with unified common position on the SCS dispute and ensure the multilateral and regional solution are in accordance with the main characteristics and principle of APSC which is rules-based, beneficial for all concerned, preserve regional peace, stability and development. Eventually, as the expected prospect, SCS dispute can be settled without any further tensions in the region and the joint cooperation of South China Sea can be attained by all claimant states under the adoption of Code of Conduct on parties in South China Sea.

References:

ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint 2025. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, 2016

ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, 2009

Bhatia, Rajiv K., and Vijay Sakhuja. Indo-Pacific Region: Political and Strategic Prospect. New Delhi: Vij Book and Indian Council of World Affairs, 2014

Council on Foreign Relations. “China’s Maritime Disputes.” Accessed October 26, 2016. http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/chinas-maritime-disputes/p31345#!/

Pertiwi, Sukmawani Bela. “Is ASEAN Unity in Danger Form the South China Sea?.” The Diplomat. August 3, 2016 Accessed October 29, 2016. http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/is-asean-unity-in-danger-from-the-south-china-sea

Roach, J. Ashley. Foreword to Malaysia and Brunei: An Analysis of Their Claims in the South China Sea. Unites States: CNA Analysis and Solution Paper, 2014

Latest Articles

Public Lecture on “Navigating Contemporary Challenges: Indonesian Diplomacy in a Chanching Global Changes”September 15, 2024 - 8:54 am
Partnership Policy Review Kick Off – “Strengthening the ASEAN Charter: Review of Regional Mechanisms and Policy Recommendations”September 12, 2024 - 7:19 am
ASEAN Spice: The Connecting Culture of Southeast AsiansJune 1, 2024 - 3:49 am
RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am

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.

ASEAN Political-Security Community: The Prospect of South China Sea

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US