Rethinking Strategies and Opportunities for ASEAN in 40 Years of Establishment of ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations

June 4, 2018/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Photo by asean.org

Chitito Audithio Syafitri

The year 2017 marks the 40^th commemoration of ASEAN – EU Dialogue Relations, which brought together the two countries to adopt a Joint Statement on the 40^th Anniversary of the Establishment of ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations as well as the ASEAN-EU Plan of Action (2018-2022) to further enhance cooperation towards strategic partnerships in order to maintain peace, stability, security and prosperity in Southeast Asia, Europe and globally.

In today’s world, the multilateralism has indeed taken the crucial role, meanwhile, the emergence of new players in the chessboard of international relations has resulted in various forms of compromise and dynamic cooperation. How should the ASEAN-EU relationship be maintained?

In recent years, not only ASEAN has sought to improve their economic cooperation with the EU, in response to the latest regional trends, ASEAN is also deepening its relations with China, which listed along with the EU having the highest trade cooperation with ASEAN since 2010. Under these circumstances, it is important that ASEAN should be able to direct its cooperation with the two countries, taking into account that tensions can easily spark between China and the EU due to the difference in principles over China’s position in the WTO.

Documented as a developing country, China gains the benefits they should not enjoy, given its current economic conditions and capacity of the country, allowing China to take fewer commitments in the WTO principles. Furthermore, China Belt Road Initiative which comprises of Silk Road Economic Belt for ground access and New Maritime Silk Road for sea access has added new concern for the EU, as they are still struggling with the dilemma of transparency from Silk Road Cooperation with EU member states in the eastern region.

China’s initiative potentially undermines the credibility of the Union such as the 16+1 initiative which able to reduce the political power of the EU that meant to integrate Europe and help China’s goal of economic politicization as has been informed in POLITICO. This type of initiative is the thing that EU is willing to contest.

Indeed, if it is not wisely managed, this situation will put ASEAN’s position as a party between the EU and China in jeopardy. Therefore, the commemoration of the 40^th ASEAN-EU relations shall be the moment for ASEAN to evaluate its regional cooperation strategy, where the trend of Asian cooperation should not diminish the focus on other cooperation, such as with EU that has been established so far.

In fact, cooperation with the EU is still very important in ASEAN economic and trade activities. Since the EU market has become a high-quality product standard, this leads to a situation where if a product can be equivalent to EU product standards, it will easily penetrate other markets around the world. Knowing these circumstances, ASEAN should be able to position itself wisely, maintain relations with the EU but on the other hand, maintain good cooperation with China, given China’s importance as one of the largest investors in the ASEAN market and infrastructure.

It is important that ASEAN takes a non-partisan position and absorbs the best of its cooperation with both parties. Apart from the above, there are several important ASEAN-EU cooperation underlined, one of which is the ASEAN Regional Integration Support from the EU 2013-2016 (ARISE), to support the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) or the great idea of ASEAN Connectivity. For ASEAN, this initiative is vital, knowing that Europeans has previously succeeded in implementing their European Economic Cooperation (AEC), therefore, ASEAN has the opportunity to learn directly from EU through this assistance. In addition, with regard to EU economic standard, the currently progressing cooperation named ASEAN – EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which ASEAN welcomed through the AEM – EU Trade Commissioner Consultations in Manila 2017 is also an opportunity for ASEAN to regionally adapt to the standards EU on imported goods.

ARISE Plus

Following the ARISE 2013-2016, the EU also seeks further cooperation with ASEAN for the successful implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) through ARISE Plus. This involvement is embodied in EU press releases intended to develop ASEAN’s single market, trade facilitation, reduce non-tariff barriers to trade, along with Intellectual Property Rights, civil aviation, and ASEAN statistics. As promised through the establishment of the ARISE program, the EU has truly shown its full support and assistance, evident from the amount of budget distributed to ARISE, which was recorded at EUR 41 million, this initiative is the largest EU-funded ASEAN action.

EU – ASEAN FTA

It is important to understand that EU engagement in Free Trade Agreements either with state entities or regional organizations is part of EU preemptive action to undermine its dependence on the US market, especially after the threat of Trump against key US allies through tariffs on steel and aluminum as US protection compensation to Europe vis-à-vis NATO.

The initiative was not new, in 2009 the ASEAN-EU discussion on FTA has been initiated, but due to some economic and political circumstances, it was never approved. As mentioned by Chotima Lemsawasdikul, director of the ASEAN Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand, by 2015, ASEAN is trying to focus on the work of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement.

In addition, it should be noted that individual ASEAN member countries such as Vietnam and Singapore have individually established bilateral trade agreements with the EU. In addition to these defective statements, it is imperative for ASEAN to have started an initiative to keep up with the EU’s regional high standards as part of ASEAN integration. If ASEAN achieves that goal, the fight for global markets is possible.

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

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.

Rethinking Strategies and Opportunities for ASEAN in 40 Years of Establishment of ASEAN-EU Dialogue Relations

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US