aseansc – Page 16 – ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

About aseansc

This author has not written his bio yet.
But we are proud to say that aseansc contributed 198 entries already.

Entries by aseansc

Glimpse of Hope: Student-led Protest in Malaysia

August 29, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Dedi Dinarto – Research Assistant at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Encouraging students to actively participating in protest movement remains arduous. The busy academic activities and full-time organizational obligation pushes student to stay calm in campus without any centrifugal way of thinking. Living under strict and rigid academic practice and value, most of the students prefer to stay behind the desk and explore the reality through cyberspace as well as preparing their self-capacity for future professional job. On the other hand, there are also small amount of students whose initiative are to oppose against authoritative, corrupt, and repressive government. Given such ‘intellectual power’ to analyze and criticize the social contract, these students come up to organize counterbalance the praxis of statehood. In the last few days, the latter is real reflects on the Malaysian student-led protest that voices out the resonance to arrest ‘Malaysian Official One’ under the yell of ‘Tangkap Malaysian Official One.’

This rally should be seen as a positive signal since students start to participate and speak out of what is happening to their country and how it should be.

Despite the fact that Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) hampers the active participation of students within political arena, students have turned into political machine to fight against government. According to Aslam Abd Jalil, a protester who had also been graduated from the Australian National University, TangkapMO1 has showed the significant role of students in political contestation. Students are not only living under the traditional academic cage, but also transcending beyond the limit and fighting for the future of nation. In a broader aspect, he assessed that the rally would cause turbulence towards ruling party, thus affects the ruling party’s popularity. However, this opportunity will not give any significant change to the Malaysian politics since the opposition party is in a mess.

Moreover, TangkapMO1 also signifies the neutrality of student from political party.

Anis Syafiqah Mohd Yusof, spokesperson for the TangkapMO1 and the member of Persatuan Mahasiswa Islam Universiti Malaya (PMIUM) mentioned that the students are non-partisan. She loudly voiced out that this student-led rally should not be used by political parties to serve their interest. Although it does not mean that students reject the support from political parties to fight for universal values and justice.

This case reveals what Eep Saefullah (the author of Catatan atas Gagalnya Politik Orde Baru 1998) mentioned about the economic and social transformations that generate the rising of active and passionate students. The higher opportunity to access education will lead to the economic vertical mobilization. The growing of critical and well-informed community is inevitable. In the context of Malaysia, this should be seen as an opportunity since the data reported from World Bank shows that the youth literacy rate in Malaysia up to 2010 is 98.4%.

However, under the authoritative political architecture, it is insufficient for students to only organize and do protest in public space. The need to build and develop discourse within society is utmost. Breaking down the strict relation between government and society should be built under the skeptic view. Therefore, spreading discourse and opinion on what has been going on would be more significant. Otherwise, the movement will be regarded as fragile and extemporaneous.

The 49th ASEAN: Who Does What and How?

August 8, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Dedi Dinarto – Research Assistant at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Indonesian scholar Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad through his prominent book titled ‘ASEAN at the Crossroads of History’ criticizes the history of ASEAN which never escape upheaval. As an institution that is designed close to the important historical events in the region, ASEAN has flexibility properties serving both opportunities and downsides.

ASEAN has now entered the age of nearly half a century indicate a lengthy process of institutionalization aspects. The question would be to what extent has ASEAN been running?

To answer these questions, then there are two main layers that can be considered. First, ASEAN as an institution. Second, ASEAN as a community.

Establishment of ASEAN in 1967 is intended to fulfill both internal and external factors.

The former means to rediscover the structure of national economic growth and development, a peaceful atmosphere at that time provides an important precondition for Southeast Asia countries. Driven by the national interest, the five founding countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) to immediately establish a functional institution.

On the other hand, the Cold War constellation led by bipolar power structure becomes a threat to the creation of the peaceful and neutral region. Under ASEAN framework, ASEAN member countries could eliminate as well as keep of the threat of communism.

These two main factors then pushed ASEAN member countries to create ZOPFAN (Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality) treaty.

From the neoliberal institutionalist perspective, the step undertaken by the ASEAN founding members is an attempt to minimize transaction costs in order to meet national interests. In other words, common interests are first defined off the international context, and then institutions are established by state actors to facilitate the achievement of their joint interests (see Keohane, 1989; Jupille and Caporaso, 1999).

However, current developments indicate ASEAN declination of the institutional aspects. This is partly reflected in the failure of ASEAN in dealing with the South China Sea case. As an institution, ASEAN failed to agree on unified voice in the face of a credible threat to the region yet neglecting the security of sea as a vital element of regional stability.

Even, it is also implicitly indicates that the ASEAN member countries are not willing to commit towards something that is not an issue for a particular country. In the context of South China Sea, the non-disputants such as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Singapore, Thailand, and Myanmar would not take a credible stance because it would undermine the logic of the transactional cost efficiency which is expected to come from ASEAN.

In the end, ASEAN will only be used as a ‘stepping stone’ by member states. As long as it can freshly prepared and maximize the potential gains to the member countries, ASEAN would still be relevant.

On the other hand, ASEAN can also be seen from the aspect of community. This has to do with the view that ASEAN is a group of countries that are bound on the role of ideology, rules, and norms. Relations between countries are prepared on social expectations rather than utility maximization calculations.

In other words, institutional routines are followed even when there is no obvious self-interest involved (see March and Olsen, 1989; Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998).

The main purpose of connecting people between countries is to construct something as an act which brings into being a subject or object that otherwise would not exist (see Fierke, 2007). This serves as driving factor encouraging the emergence of a community of discourse among member states are organized into three pillars of the ASEAN Community in 2025 include the issue of political-security, economic, and socio-cultural.

Nevertheless, ASEAN is still experiencing a significant issue in encouraging regionalism at the community level. Acharya (2004) was doubting the possibility of ‘participatory regionalism’. Even though several wider NGO-based regional institutions, such as ASEAN Civil Society Conference/ASEAN People’s Forum (ACSC/APF) and Asian People’s Advocacy have fought for people’s voice, the case of human rights abuse and trafficking remains appeared on newspaper’s headlines.

Thus, these multi-layer view provides us a reflective insight. To date, ASEAN serves as a political product working simultaneously on both institution and community. It remains a great competition between ‘the logic of consequences’ deemed by States and ‘the logic of appropriateness’ conceived by NGOs as the representative of community. This signifies the multi-interpretive of ASEAN as both an institution and community. Therefore, the development of ASEAN in the future would be depending on who does what and how. It defines the possibility of all agents to shape ASEAN either to remain state-centric or community based.

From a Security Regime into a Security Community: Is it Time?

August 1, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Habibah H. Hermanadi – Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

2016 begun with yet another terrorist attack to one of the ASEAN member states, Indonesia, the attempt of suicide bomb in Jakarta backed up by the currently emerging terrorist group Daesh surprisingly resulting in the famous #kamitidaktakut internet sensation which means we are not afraid, a sense of solidarity among Indonesians to resist the terror. Daesh or known as Islamic State (IS) is currently expanding their influence beyond Middle East and North Africa towards Asian regions with strong ideological roots fighting for the return of Islamic Caliphate. Their attacks went continuously in 2016 throughout Europe and Asia, the group is known for spreading terror and grievance by utilizing these attacks and propaganda. One of the most viral propagandas was recently uploaded in youtube—a video based social media depicting dozen of young Indonesian and Malaysian children who were armed and told to ‘liberate’ their homelands.

Another notorious terrorist group which identifies itself as Abu Sayyaf, located in Philippines, has been causing distress in the Southeast Asia region since 2004, the group spreads regional terror after the very recent case where the group kidnapped 7 Indonesian sailors last month and now 5 more Malaysian fishermen were abducted around Sulu, Philippines. The group had shown extreme gruesome hostility towards the government by sending visual threats through the act of beheading, it was considered as obscenely brutal way when it is not done in one fell swoop of a sword, but with slashes and hacks from a hunting knife.

On the 36th ASEANPOL Conference, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak stated the importance of unity to fight off terror, in his speech he clearly mentioned “Daesh and its cruel, twisted ideology have no place in our peaceful, diverse, tolerant country and nor in our region,” he also condemned Abu Sayyaf and their recent abduction. The Prime Minister put on emphasis on the role of stronger ASEAN by taking example of Malaysia who had adapted the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act or Sosma; the Special Measures against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Act; the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the National Security Council, by implying these strong counterterrorism measure within Malaysia he had been facing many critics which questioned the government’s intentions yet he was unapologetic for the action that he took when it comes to the safety of the citizens. Similar reaction was shown by the newly elected President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, where he appointed the military to enhance the capability to search and engage the rogue and lawless elements, in his words, “the Armed Forces of the Philippines will be applied to crush these criminals who operate under the guise of religious fervor.”

The strong remark on the conference was dearly welcomed by the Russian federation whereas Moscow offered joint measures to diminish the number of militants arriving from Daesh, The idea was in line with Prime Minister Najib Razak mentioned, Russia will work together with ASEAN through mechanisms of our partnership, namely informal meetings of ASEAN defense ministers and talks of senior officials and sessions of the working group on counteracting terrorism and transnational crime. However on the foreign ministers meeting collaboration between ASEAN-United States was drawn, according to deputy’s spokesperson Mark Toner the detail of collaboration would be focusing on specific actions to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and ASEAN-US pledged their commitment to strengthen cooperation against terrorism and violent extremism.

The two initiations by the two influential countries exactly portray the dynamics of security in Southeast Asia, in one side as terrorist groups had been advancing themselves and connectivity among nations became vital in the context of tracking these groups down, yet in the other side the region has always been known as a strategic region, desirable by many for further security collaborations allowing flow of external parties from United States and Russia questioning the 1971 Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality declaration which was created to assure that there will be no interference coming from outside powers. Razak and Duterte had been very vocal in showing their firm actions against these terrorist groups and suggesting others to tighten their military involvement in counterterrorism. Through these strong reactions ASEAN is given an opportunity to think about what Center for Strategic and International Studies, Rizal Sukma, mentioned in 2015 that ASEAN is not a security community, but rather a a security regime; without violating the sacred principle of non-interference. Will the current face of terror reformed the status quo driving ASEAN closer towards its ‘security community’ and ‘common internal enemy’ concept voiced by Professor Amitav Acharya in 1991? Either way the answer lies among the member states and whether or not they will concur.

Sea as Political Space under ASEAN’s Flag

July 27, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

The obscurity of ASEAN facing the South China Sea issue after the victory of the Philippines against China in the tribunal ruling showed the fragmented ASEAN. Various views criticized potential to rearrange ASEAN regional integration ended nil after the result of ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Vientiane, Laos. The meeting ended without a joint agreement by ASEAN member countries on the issue of the South China Sea. This situation indicates a declination of political relations between ASEAN countries within the framework of regional cooperation.

After the victory according to the result issued by the arbitral tribunal ruling, the Philippines energies a new approach for ASEAN to encourage the unification of ASEAN on the issue of the South China Sea during the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Laos. The initiative was presented by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines as a step getting the international support towards ASEAN unity. The meeting was controversially reported that Cambodia and Laos refuse consensus in facing the South China Sea.

In fact, when referring to the release of a joint communique of the 49th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, all countries agreed to establish a network of communication between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to maritime emergencies in the South China Sea. Nevertheless, the strategic measures agreed upon has not shown the existence of a single perspective in dealing with China in the South China Sea. Two of the failure to agree on a joint communiqué in Phnom Penh and Kuala Lumpur should be seen as the culmination of the change of position of ASEAN on South China Sea.

Thus, the question would be how should the ASEAN member countries facing the South China Sea issue?

ASEAN needs to establish a new constructive approach on the sea and its significance for regional integration. Sea is not only to be treated as a material element that can be exploited, but also as a political space in which the action of appropriation can be performed. Reflecting on how the Chinese build a discourse on the importance of the South China Sea is not only to meet the substantive national interest, but also as a traditional element that must be protected.

In the context of Southeast Asia, Jennifer Gaynor argues that the political instrumentalization over sea space had already happened in Southeast Asia. It was firstly brought by the Javanese who are creating the concept of ‘Nusantara’ dividing them with outside party. However, this concept developed to serve ranging purposes from nation-building, national security, and territorial demarcation (Gaynor, 2007). Since the mid-twentieth century, the term Nusantara has become the synonym for tanah air. This period demonstrated how Majapahit empire used this term making appropriation against the Dutch who claimed to restore the glorious of “Indianized” states of Java’s pre-Islamic past (Gaynor, 2007). By giving such ‘spatial ideology’ is to serve the purpose of Javanese making exclusive space against other nations outside of Java Island. In the aftermath, the concept of Nusantara denotes a national space in 1940s. The contemporary Indonesian illustrated Nusantara as a group of islands located between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean or between the Asian mainland and Australia. For the last reason, in 1957, the Indonesia government reinvented the concept of Nusantara in order to prevent the regional rebellions, thus issuing a statement of national unity called the Djuanda Declaration. The additional purpose is that this declaration also includes all of the waters between Indonesia’s islands within a single connected body: manifesting the abstract geographical signifier.

Referring the context above, the ASEAN member countries should begin to consider sea as a political space that is significant to be maintained through the process of appropriation. Instead of just dwelling on the substantive level, ASEAN members need to realize the importance of the ideological claims of the sea as a political space.

Dedi Dinarto is a research assistant at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Seeking a Common Ground

July 26, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Source: Xinhua

By Habibah H. Hermanadi, Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

At the end of the 2016 ASEAN regional summit all member states are looking forward to the joint declaration which will define ASEAN’s current stance as one unity, this one voice decision making process was seen as a way to assure unanimity within the forum. Once again the issue of South China Sea was brought into the table and causing internal schism. After Beijing rejected tribunal’s ruling in South China Sea earlier this month on 12th of July, the decision clearly stated that the permanent Court of Arbitration found that China had no basis for its expansive claims to territorial waters around the Philippines. Internal fragmentation within the meeting was not subtle as Cambodia publicly endorses China with their claim and China directly showed its gratitude towards Cambodia for taking charge of impartiality. The opposition shown by Cambodia was rather predictable considering what Prime Minister Hun Sen’s statement last year where he emphasized the importance of exclusive meeting only among the countries who are directly affected by the issues. In Vientiane, not until the 25th of July the draft statement to be issued by the foreign ministers under the clause of South China Sea was left blank, eventually a consensus was reached with all parties agreeing to refer back to UNCLOS code of conduct.

The utterance given by the arbitration tribunal supposedly helps to resolve disputes; the result is upholding the law and clarifies the stance of the parties. Regardless how Beijing had vowed to ignore the legally binding ruling, the decision by the tribunal became the principal assurance not only for the Philippines but also Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam where if the claim was invalid for the Philippines it is equally invalid to other states and the rest of the international community.

The current chair of ASEAN, Laos, was expected to steer the negotiation in order to draw a equitable result for all of the state members. As the current chair Laos’ involvement and intervention were paramount in preventing another failure from getting into consensual joint statement, presumably a compromised stance is what the forum aimed for yet the current result shown that the declaration merely touch the surface of the conflict. To negotiate and stand against China was considered to be a delicate issue and could be detrimental for Laos’ domestic needs considering that People’s Republic of China is still Laos‘crucial economic partners. By the end of the summit, the joint declaration some considered as fruitful is causing doubts because it is perceived as bland and inconclusive. There are still high hopes upon the current Prime Minister of Laos, Thongloun Sisoulith as his internationalist perspective shapes the current Laos foreign policy architecture. In line with Laos’ theme of “Turning Vision Into Reality for a Dynamic ASEAN Community.” this summit was the key for all the partaking actors to actually come up with tangible outcomes, a ‘reality’ deemed and visualized by Laos as the chair of ASEAN. Nevertheless, the pressure was rather high for Laos as it sources from both ASEAN’s side and China. Laos should be able to make the best out of its current leadership position yet at the same time anticipate further fragmentation coming out of this year’s summit.

Naturally, this summit was the reflection of where has ASEAN brought itself into, whether or not its progress up until 2016 had fulfilled what the region envisioned and what will they do next. The region itself must be able to discuss sensitive issues which are occurring within the region yet at the same time strengthen the cooperation and examine the ongoing integration process. Inevitably external influences are flooding ASEAN’s decision making process, despite of the status quo it is important to stay as one or else ASEAN will be leaving up rooms for disintegration. Not to repeat the 2012 debacle which caused seeds of discord ASEAN must be able to step up their diplomatic strategy, acknowledging what this region capable of and upping their ante with stronger bargaining position. As the summit continues that desirable tangible conclusion must be able to represent a sense of common ground among ASEAN state members.

1st ASEAN Youth Initiative Empowerment Program 2016

June 16, 2016/in News/by aseansc

ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, is proud to launch our 1st ASEAN Youth Initiative Empowerment Program 2016 that aims to increase the awareness of ASEAN issues among youth as the asset to take the opportunity in this integrated region. AYIEP 2016 will be held on August 14-21, 2016 by addressing the theme “Regional Diversity in Constructing ASEAN Identity”.

Although ASEAN is politically cohesive, economically integrated, and socially responsible in order to effectively respond to the current and future challenges and opportunities, however, the regional diversity on the minor issues believed as the importance bridge in connecting and strengthening the ASEAN member States and peoples which differ significantly in ethnic people, culture, religion, and historic experiences. The awareness of ASEAN identity could lead the young generation to contribute on the problem solving for the development of ASEAN Community.

Therefore, AYIEP 2016 has decided to deliver three important subthemes to represent the diversity and the dynamism of ASEAN member states, these subthemes are seen to be paramount as part of the development and integration of the ASEAN community as mentioned above. These sub-themes are reflecting the implications of incorporated values which are being hold by ASEAN as an organization; Disability, Women and Children, and Religious Ethnic Groups.

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

After Tsunami: ASEAN Reborn?

May 30, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Mohammad Hazyar Arumbinang, Intern staff ASEAN Studies Center UGM.

A powerful Indian Ocean earthquake was constructed on December 26, 2004, with the epicenter off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. The shock had a moment magnitude of 9.1-9.3. It caused the massive giant waves devastated thousands of communities along the coastline of the Indian Ocean. More than 240,000 people were killed. Tens of thousands went missing and are presumed dead, and more than a million people were displaced. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. [1] The plight of the affected people and countries prompted a worldwide humanitarian emergency response. As part of commitment towards a partnership with local and global cooperation, especially the catastrophic involves the loss of many lives and beyond the capacity of the affected state to recover the conditions of the disaster-affected community and the environment. It just like wake up call for all human around the world. In all, the worldwide community donated more than US$ 14 billion in humanitarian aid.

The Tsunami was calculated has affected 14 countries around Southeast Asia area. Four Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member countries: Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia including Sri Lanka and India are the most affected state during the catastrophic event. Considering the ASEAN members were not willing to give up sovereignty rights at any level of the corporation, then how the ASEAN respond the international humanitarian assistance during emergency response? Does “ASEAN Way” still remain during the crisis?

“FAILED” ASEAN?

Back to 29 June 1976, during an ASEAN meeting in Manila, the “ASEAN Declaration on Mutual Assistance on Natural Disaster” was signed. It was agreed to provide a catastrophe-stricken country was supposed to designate a national government agency acting as an internal coordinating body. [2] Yet the declaration failed to call for a central institution that could have organized an ASEAN-wide relief effort. Meanwhile, in August 1997, huge forest fires on the island of Borneo caused immense air pollution in wide parts of the region. Consequently, ASEAN set up a “Regional Haze Action Plan”. Again, the country failed to adopt and implement a national haze prevention plan. From the series, ASEAN has failed to establish a fundamental framework on mutual cooperation disaster management and unsuccessful to play their role to manage the disaster within ASEAN areas. Reflecting on those fact, does ASEAN still has a serious commitment?

AFTER TSUNAMI

In the early morning, the widespread international community has been there in various host state and giving disaster relief as an international humanitarian mission. On that moment, the Southeast Asia seems like clearly borderless due to the crisis. The national sovereignty of the host state put a side but still respected during the disaster emergency response.

On January 6th, 2005, during the tsunami aftermath meeting, the ASEAN leaders issued a “Declaration on Action to Strengthen Emergency Relief, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction, and Prevention: On the Aftermath of the Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster of 26 December 2004”. They expressed their condolences and solidarity. They stated that the tsunami disaster calls for “global response” and appreciated the vast international help received. In order to prevent such a disaster in future, the ASEAN leaders declared their will to extend their regional mechanisms on disaster prevention and mitigation. This was to be done by training military and civilian personnel in disaster relief operations, as determined in the “ASEAN Security Community Plan of Action “.

Further, they stated their aim to put the “ASEAN Disaster Information Sharing and Communication Network” into action as provided for in the “ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Component of the Vientiane Action Program”. Following this case, the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) was signed in July 2005 and has been entered into force on 24 December 2009 [3]. ASEAN member countries also led the adoption of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 59/279 of 19 January 2005 to strengthen emergency relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction and prevention in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster. The series efforts, led strengthening the ASEAN commitment for cooperation, coordination, technical assistance, and resource mobilization in all aspects of disaster management.

Finally, we have seen ASEAN playing an important role in preparing the disaster management due to minimizing the loss. It implies that ASEAN needs a massive crisis and devastating event to waking up the awareness of the community (ASEAN) in humanitarian issue.

[1] East-West Center, 2005, After The Tsunami: Human Rights of Vulnerable Populations, Berkeley: University of California Press.

[2] Gentner, heide Haruyo, “ASEAN: Cooperative disaster relief after the tsunami”, Journal of current Southeast Asian affairs, Volume XXIV, 2006.

[3] Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 2013, “ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Response (AADMER) Work Programme 2010-2015 (4th Reprint)” http://www.asean.org/?static_post=asean-agreement-on-disaster-management-and-emergency-response-aadmer-work-programme-2010-2015-4th-reprint, accessed on April 20, 2016 at 09:54 AM.

FCTC and Tobacco Control Policies in Southeast Asia: the “Special” Case of Indonesia

May 20, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Andika Putra, Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

Tobacco is one of the greatest emerging health disasters in human history[1], it’s generally use among the poor and increasing among girls.[2] In 2014, almost 20% or about 121 million of the adult ASEAN population are the smokers and it is potentially increase every year. As it is known, the harms of smoking are global in scope and one of the main cause of non-communicable disease. Moreover, Indonesia is one of the state which has the highest number of smokers in the world. By referring to the data above, ASEAN states must act multilaterally to repel this global threat to public health.

Actually, in 2002, Southeast Asia Governments has agreed to eradicate the number of smoker through the 6th Health Ministers Meeting, ASEAN governments committed to a vision and a “Regional Action Plan on Healthy ASEAN Lifestyles”. Identifying tobacco control as one of the priority policy areas, the Action Plan calls upon member nations to implement a Program of Work on promoting healthy ASEAN lifestyles[3]. For tobacco control policies this includes developing and implementing a national action plan in each states, in line with the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO-FCTC).

Primarily, the WHO FCTC is the first international treaty negotiated under the auspices of WHO and provides a new legal dimension for International health cooperation. It was adopted by the World Health Assembly on 21 May 2003 and entered into force on 27 February 2005. As an international treaty, the FCTC can be used as a standard to measure whether states are fulfilling their obligations derived from the right to health, as they exist under international human rights law, because it is regulating the control of tobacco consumption demand and controlling supply of cigarettes.

Furthermore, in Southeast Asia, Indonesia is the one and only state which did not ratify the FCTC, along with other states namely Andorra, Eriteria, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Monaco, Somalia, the Dominican Republic and South Sudan.[4]. This reluctance may be explained by a fear that implementing the treaty’s content would damage the tobacco industry, which is considered an important source of income and employment[5]. Whereas, the FCTC plays an essential role in connecting the ASEAN states member to act multilaterally to repel this global threat, because as a part of regional organization which agreed to implement a “Regional Action Plan on Healthy ASEAN Lifestyles”, Indonesia did not ratify the WHO-FCTC that become the main legal instrument as the guideline to reach the objectives of the regional action plan. Finally, one of the strategic measures for tobacco control in Southeast Asia is through the ratification of Framework Convention on Tobacco Control by the Indonesia. It is not only to fulfill and protect the right to health of the citizen but also through this ratification Indonesia show their commitment to support tobacco control policies in the region.

– – –

[1] WHO, WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, Geneva: WHO, 2008
[2] Institute of Medicine, Promoting Cardiovascular Health in the Developing World: A Critical Challenge to Achieve Global Health (Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press, 2010), p.73
[3] SEATCA ASEAN Tobacco Control Report, Jakarta: ASEAN, 2014
[4] http://www.who.int/fctc/signatories_parties/en/, accessed 7 am, May, 17^th 2016
[5] Simon Barraclough and Martha Morrow, The political economy of tobacco and poverty alleviation in Southeast Asia: contradictions in the role of the state, IUHPE – Global Health Promotion Supp (1) 2010, p.45

Year of Laos: Queries for the New ASEAN Chair

May 10, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Habibah Hermanadi, Intern Staff ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada

The role of ASEAN chairmanship will be held in the hands of Laos in 2016; despite the fact that it is not the first time the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to hold the role as the chair of ASEAN since 2004 questions still arose due the fact that conditions had shifted as the global political course had changed. It is perceivable since ASEAN had ratified new treaties, the dynamics of states had been refined according new pillars and agreements among state members and Laos had changed within the last decade. Many deemed Lao’s leadership will bring significant changes for the region but there are also others who query this particular leadership turnover.

As ASEAN gradually walk towards a more human rights oriented path by creating an identity which could cohesively represent its community, Laos has been seen unfit to represent such agenda, recent case would be reflected from Laos who has been unresponsive in regard to 80 human rights recommendations by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Amnesty International, 2015). And instead it is visible that international pressures to improve transparency and protect human rights have only reinforced the government’s resolve to suppress public and political opposition. More importantly media has limited freedom when it comes to dealing with Laos (Hunt, 2016), as the existence of draconian media monitoring laws with the country’s current role as the 2016 ASEAN Chair; the laws have potentials to constrain international reporting on important transnational issues discussed at ASEAN meetings and conferences (Sims, 2016)

However, as part of the integration initiatives this landlocked country might serve a fresh perspective for the rest of the other ASEAN member states. Thongloun Sisoulith declared it not long ago prior to his appointment as Prime Minister of Laos that the top priorities for Laos’ chairmanship are narrowing the development gaps between member states, promoting connectivity by promoting small and midsize enterprises. Under this chairmanship Sisoulith emphasized the need to improve trade facilitation, encourage more subsistence workers to enter the formal economy, and step up efforts to preserve and promote ASEAN’s cultural heritage (Chongkittavor, 2016). It cannot be eluded the fact that Laos was the one who pushed a successful joint declaration on the basis of ASEAN during the United States-ASEAN Summit last February hosted by Barrack Obama, That document will serve as the foundation for stronger ASEAN-U.S. cooperation in the years to come, tangible progress on advancing the U.S.-ASEAN relationship a step further from November 2015, when the United States and ASEAN elevated their relationship to the level of a strategic partnership and laid out a concrete plan of action to implement it out to 2020 (Prameswaran, 2016).

Laos has show its potential in balancing how ASEAN should steer itself among the superpowers, as another interest shown by another contending actor in the ground known as the South China Sea, we cannot outlook People’s Republic of China as the largest trading partner of Laos and perceptible role among the ASEAN state members, most importantly China’s diplomatic approach had been fully committed in gradually courting smaller countries in ASEAN mainly Brunei, Laos, and Cambodia (Johnson, 2016). Laos will also have to stand its ground to be the chair the ASEAN aspired to be in positioning itself facing the ongoing negotiation between Trans Pacific Partnership and Regional Economic Cooperation Partnership which had sparked the interest of other member states, Laos can navigate the issues relating to overlapping maritime territorial claims in the South China Sea and the rise of China and its increasingly competitive rivalry with the US rebalance in Asia (Vilavong, 2016). Yet under this chairmanship whichever the institution leaned itself towards ASEAN must not to neglect the core of ASEAN Economic Community and its extension due in 2025.

Amidst the internal human rights inside of Laos’ political regime and inherent fragmentation within the ASEAN itself the new set of chairmanship must be able to attain the integration which is the main aim of ASEAN. If the agenda of gap elimination could be fulfilled as it was mentioned by Sisoulith the next step for deepening the integration and acquiring an ASEAN standard would seem near foreseeable future. Laos’ new leadership must be able to answer some difficult questions and challenges regionally and internationally. Will Laos be capable of hosting the ASEAN summit and related meetings? The AEC aspects of being ASEAN Chair have increased significantly since the last time Laos held position as chair, as have the Political-Security and Socio-Cultural community aspects. Such responsibilities, along with the logistical burdens that would come with having two ASEAN Summits in 2016, led Laos to propose having the two summits mandated by the ASEAN Charter on a back-to-back basis in November 2016, effectively resulting in a single meeting (Sim, 2015). Laos has a whole year to prove itself as these meetings hold the key of uniting ASEAN’s states members in facing external influences and balancing their powers in the region.

Photo source http://havokjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/throne-dpc.jpg

References:

Amnesty International. (2015). Laos 2015/2016. Retrieved May 09, 2016, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/laos/report-laos/

Chongkittavorn, K. (2016, May 05). Kavi Chongkittavorn: Laos' new leader faces big challenges -- at home and as ASEAN chief. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20160505-DEMOCRACY-DEFERRED/Viewpoints/Kavi-Chongkittavorn-Laos-new-leader-faces-big-challenges-at-home-and-as-ASEAN-chief?page=2

Hunt, L. (2016, April 03). What If They Gave an ASEAN Summit and the Media Failed to Turn Up? Retrieved May 09, 2016, from http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/what-if-they-gave-an-asean-summit-and-the-media-failed-to-turn-up/

Johnson, J. (2016, May 1). Beijing launches charm offensive ahead of South China Sea court ruling | The Japan Times. Retrieved May 09, 2016, from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/01/asia-pacific/beijing-launches-charm-offensive-ahead-south-china-sea-court-ruling/#.VzC4n9J97IU

Sim, E. (2015, June 10). Can Laos Lead ASEAN in 2016? Retrieved May 09, 2016, from http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/can-laos-lead-asean-in-2016-2/

Sims, K. (2016, April 15). Is Laos' ASEAN Chairmanship a Threat to Southeast Asian Regionalism? Retrieved May 09, 2016, from http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/is-laos-asean-chairmanship-a-threat-to-southeast-asian-regionalism/

Prameswaran, P. (2016, February 11). Why the US-ASEAN Sunnylands Summit Matters. Retrieved May 09, 2016, from http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/why-the-us-asean-sunnylands-summit-matters/

Vilavong, B. (2016, May 07). ASEAN needs Laos' leadership. Retrieved May 09, 2016, from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/05/07/asean-needs-laos-leadership/

ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution: The Indonesian Commitment

May 5, 2016/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Andika Putra, Intern staff at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

Indonesia has finally ratified the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) on September 2014. After 12 years, the ratification was done following a discussion by a plenary session of the House of Representatives Attended by parliamentary members, as well as some Ministers. The decision of the plenary session marked the beginning of a new stage in the Indonesian leadership for the prevention and control of land or forest fires at the ASEAN regional level[1]

As it known, transboundary haze pollution is considered one of the major problems in the ASEAN region. Moreover, Indonesia is one of the major sources of the haze pollution in the Southeast Asia. The pollution which is caused by human activities in burning land/forest for plantation and/or agriculture does not stopping at national borders only, but also causing transboundary pollution to the neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Singapore[2]. The origins of the Agreement trace back to the regional haze crisis of 1997. In that year, Southeast Asia faced an environmental catastrophe that led to “unprecedented health and financial damages” throughout the region[3].

Thus, the importance of Indonesia’s ratification can be seen in its willingness to officially join the regional effort to address the issue[4], by ratify this agreement Indonesia recognize the issue of haze pollution not only become the domestic issue, but also the ASEAN problem that have to be solved together in line with the other members. The benefits of ratification to Indonesia and ASEAN should be enough to overcome the haze pollution. These benefits include greater coordination among the parties in addressing the transboundary haze originating in Indonesia by facilitating the spread of information and by allowing Indonesia to shape the Agreement based on its experiences as the only major source state in the region. These benefits are not limited to the current problem; they will also apply in the future when other states become source states

Furthermore, through this ratification Indonesia show their commitment to solve the haze pollution. Even, the ratification of the Agreement may not eliminate the transboundary haze pollution immediately, because AATHP is only a legal framework for cooperation and does not address important technical issues. Ultimately, additional initiative is needed to determine how countries will work together to exchange information and expertise and it can bring all the stakeholders together to facilitate a more lasting solution than they would otherwise be able to reach on their own.

Now, all ASEAN members have ratified the AATHP. Thus, it is unlikely that the ratification will quickly lead to a mitigation of haze pollution. But at least all ASEAN member states have now officially agreed that haze pollution is not a domestic problem but, rather a regional problem that have to be solved together, and Indonesia has to put their concern on how to deal with the haze pollution, not only by ratify the AATHP, but also deal with their own domestic matter, such as law enforcement and other matter related to the solution of haze pollution.

[1] Anonymous (2014, September 16). Indonesia ratifies ASEAN agreement on transboundary haze pollution. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from < http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/95683/indonesia-ratifies-asean agreement-on-transboundary-haze-pollution>

[2] Yordan Gunawan, “Transboundary Haze Pollution in the Perspective of International Law of State Responsibility”, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

[3] Jerger, David B. , Jr. “Indonesia’s Role in Realizing the Goals of ASEAN’s Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.” Sustainable Development Law & Policy 14, no. 1 (2014). p.40

[4] Heilmann, Daniel (2015), After Indonesia’s Ratification: The ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution and Its Effectiveness As a Regional Environmental Governance Tool, in: Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 34, 3, 95–121

Photo source: http://www.aktual.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/antarafoto-presiden-tinjau-kebakaran-lahan-060915-nw-3.jpg

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.