ASEAN After 50: Rethinking ASEAN-China Cultural Cooperation

August 11, 2017/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Dr. Gabriel Lele

ASEAN-China cooperation has stepped towards a new phase in the recent decade. As ASEAN is celebrating its 50th anniversary, it is important to rethink the cooperation in the future.

The cooperation between China-Indonesia has been developing since as early as the 7th century when Indonesia was part of the Silk Route among traders. China has its special place in Indonesian history. One of the most historical incidence from Indonesia perspective is the incidence of military aggression to conquer Kingdom of Majapahit of Java in the 13th century for economic and territorial purposes.

The most recent displeasing incident took place during Indonesian economic crisis in 1997-1999. As the crisis went up, the anti-Chinese sentiment escalated due to the accusations that Chinese-Indonesian who are mostly the wealthy businessman is partly responsible for the crisis.

Against this background, up to the very recent days, the cooperation between the two countries, China and Indonesia, has developed even more significant. In cultural sector, there are several key milestones for this instance and the following are some facts.

In the field of tourism, the inbound tourist from China to Indonesia has increased significantly during the last few years. The number of tourists from China recorded as the highest compared to any other country. In fact, the Indonesian government wishes to boost the number in the near future.

In regard to that idea, the Indonesian government has applied a visa-free policy for Chinese visiting Indonesia for cultural purposes.

The latter achievement cannot be separated from several policy initiatives coming from both governments. There have been several policy commitments to extend cultural ties in a more general or specific ways. The involvement of non-government institutions in cultural affairs has also increased by, for example, the extension of education cooperation among universities and inter-media cooperation. This has also strengthened by the cooperation between/among air carriers to support people mobility.

While acknowledging this progress, a qualitative observation reveals that some concerns sustain. Some of the cultural relation framework signed at both bilateral and regional levels require further efforts to make it actual.

Despite its huge potential and opportunity, it is time to take a brief reflection on the ASEAN-China cultural cooperation, what are the challenges and how can we deal with them? How could the cultural bond between two countries be strengthened?

As it has been recognized, strong and genuine cultural cooperation must be based on mutual understanding, mutual respect, and mutual acceptance that may lead to harmonious ties. Because of this very reason, inter-country cultural cooperation cannot be built from the top. Rather, it has to be started from the bottom, where people-to-people cooperation is the key cornerstone.

To this very condition, the current arrangement and implementation of China-Indonesia cultural cooperation have raised criticisms. The first criticism deals with the approach adopted by both governments that are too state/elite centric and close or even secret nature of (cultural) diplomacy. This is a very common way used by the ASEAN member countries or the “ASEAN way” as it commonly known.

Under this scheme, public outreach is only relevant when dealing with the implementation. The secret and elite centric approach are adopted for almost all issues, even for issues that are less/least sensitive where the public participation is important such as cultural cooperation. This is means that cultural policy making only involves limited formal actors. Combined, this has raised the question of legitimacy, acceptability and its ability to be implemented.

The second criticism centers on the issue of implementation or the way cultural cooperation is executed. Because of the nature of cultural policy making, implementation has been very weak, in which delay and deficit are common. Our research shows that even within ASEAN itself, there are many agreements which simply do not work. Opposition to the regional agreements is commonly found.

For example, China and the ASEAN member countries could exchange archives or ancient artistic heritage. But for whose benefit? Putting ancient antiques in both countries’ museums is a very good idea, but then, what is the point if there are no visitors?

Similarly, both countries could agree to exchange basic country information through schools or universities. This would result in no impact if the activity is not supported by a more consolidated curriculum. Unfortunately, this is beyond the reach of both Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Culture.

This kind of problem requires immediate assistance. The first point of departure is by thoroughly considering the nature of governance structure. Chinese governance structure is totally different from the one adopted in Indonesia, with the first being more concerned while the later being more fragmented. This different level of fragmentation affects significantly the prospect of policy success. The lesson is that governance can no longer be ignored or taken for granted; it has to be dealt with more seriously by involving all relevant stakeholders in the policy-making process.

The last criticism deals more with the paradigmatic flaw in how culture and cultural cooperation are defined and operationalized. Different documents concerning cultural cooperation use different definition or dimension.

It is noticeable within the Plan of Action to Implement the Joint Declaration on ASEAN-China Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity (2016-2020), where culture and cultural cooperation are only partially understood as “literature, libraries, archival materials, museums, performing arts, visual arts, art education, other relevant public cultural facilities and cultural/creative industry”. The concept of “culture” is also closely related “historical relics, archaeology and cultural heritage preservation, museums, archives, libraries, and cultural institutes.

Far before this document was developed, ASEAN and China has also signed a MoU on Cultural Relations in Bangkok 2005, through which, culture is broadly defined to cover “tangible and intangible cultural heritage, archaeology, traditional and contemporary arts, cultural enterprise and creative industries, and cultural enterprise” (see Paragraph 2).

ASEAN and China have to solve this issue. We need a better framework for ASEAN-China Cultural Cooperation in the future.

*) Dr. Gabriel Lele is Senior Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center and Associate Professor at Department of Management and Public Policy, Universitas Gadjah Mada. A longer version of this article was presented at the Network of ASEAN-China Think Tank (NACT) Meeting in Guiyang, China.

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.

ASEAN After 50: Rethinking ASEAN-China Cultural Cooperation

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US