Author: aseansc

Public Lecture: Indonesia’s Foreign Policy during Jokowi: With or Without ASEAN?

Under President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, Indonesia appears less oriented toward the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Earlier in 2014, Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi embraced several new ideas on how Indonesia’s foreign policy will be directed under her leadership, which is now popular as “Pro-People” Foreign policy. Recent developments showed some moves in Indonesia’s foreign policy to promote bilateral diplomacy rather than multilateralism, strengthening ties with China, and  reluctance to take lead in the emerging South China Sea.

Is this a signal that Jokowi is now on his way to abandon “ASEAN-Centrality” and move to a “Post-ASEAN” regional policy?  What do these developments imply to regional politics in Southeast Asia?

ASEAN Studies Center, Universitas Gadjah Mada, cordially invites all students and researchers to discuss these issues in a Public Lecture with two Speakers:

1. Dr Avery Poole (Lecturer in International Relations, University of Melbourne)
2. Zain Maulana, MA (PhD Candidate at the University of Leeds, UK)

Moderator: Ahmad Rizky M. Umar, MSc.

The Groundbreaking Ceremony of Cooperation between ASEAN Studies Center UGM and Groningen Research Centre for SEA and ASEAN, University Of Groningen

ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada (ASC UGM) merupakan satu dari sekian pusat studi ASEAN yang ada di Indonesia dengan inisiatif kerja sama dan produktivitas penelitian yang paling intensif. Sebagai institusi yang terdepan dalam penelitian tentang ASEAN dan Asia Tenggara di Indonesia dan ASEAN, ASC UGM berkomitmen untuk menjalankan peran tidak hanya sebagai pusat kajian, namun menjadi tempat belajar bagi akademisi dan ilmuwan dari seluruh dunia melalui Indonesia, khususnya di Universitas Gadjah Mada. Inisiatif ini sejalan dengan keinginan Groningen Research Center for Southeast Asia and ASEAN untuk berperan dalam menjembatani Asia Tenggara dan Uni Eropa sebagai dua kawasan dengan dinamika dan proses regionalisme yang masih berjalan. Di tingkatan yang lebih tinggi, University of Groningen sebagai gerbang utama untuk mempelajari bidang governance (tata kelola), regionalisme, dan spatial planning (perencanaan ruang)

Di sisi yang lain, kerja sama antar dua institusi ini (sister-institute cooperation) adalah usaha untuk mengonsolidasi 40 tahun kolaborasi UGM dengan UoG dalam beberapa bidang, seperti scientific and cultural exchange; ASEAN-EU engagement; interdisciplinary research; policy-relevance; middle income countries in ASEAN (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar).

Melalui kerja sama ini, terdapat beberapa aktivitas yang akan diselenggarakan dalam beberapa tahun ke depan, antara lain:

1. Konferensi Musim Gugur yang bertujuan mewadahi akademisi, ilmuwan, dan peneliti dari Asia Tenggara dan Uni Eropa dalam forum bersama pada tahun 2017 dengan tema “New Conception of Governance in Southeast Asia and ASEAN: Social Inclusion, Resiliency, and Sustainable Society and 21th Century”
2. Peluncuran buku sebagai keluaran dari Konferensi Musim Gugur di Brussels pada tahun 2018.
3. Pertukaran perwakilan di masing-masing ASEAN Studies Centre dan SEA ASEAN Groningen.

Acara ini dihadiri oleh Presiden UoG Prof. Sibrand Poppema, Direktur SEA ASEAN Groningen Prof. Dr. Ronald L. Holzhacker, Direktur Asosiasi SEA ASEAN Groningen Dr. Wendy Tan, Wakil Dekan untuk Pendidikan dan Kemahasiswaan Dr. Nanang Pamuji Mugasejati, Direktur ASEAN Studies Center, dan berbagai perwakilan institusi di tingkat universitas dan fakultas. Delegasi-delegasi di atas menyempatkan waktu untuk duduk bersama dan saling berbagi sambutan. Selain itu juga mengunjungi kantor ASEAN Studies Centre untuk melihat kondisi dan perkembangan yang ada. Acara ditutup dengan penyerahan cinderamata dari dan kepada masing-masing pihak. Harapannya, kerja sama ini dapat memperluas kerja sama antar dua kawasan melalui kedua institusi sebagai gateway dari masing-masing kawasan dan juga sebagai inisiasi memperkuat kerja sama antar pusat kajian lintas negara dan kawasan.

ASEAN Countries Military Strength Infographic

Call for Essay: ASEAN Community Post 2015

ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada mengadakan Kompetisi Esai dengan tema “ASEAN Community Post 2015” dengan ketentuan sebagai berikut:

Subtema

• Socio-Cultural Pillar
• Economic Pillar
• Political and Security Pillar

Ketentuan Umum

• Biaya Pendaftaran: Rp 30.000,-
• Peserta merupakan masyarakat umum se-Indonesia
• Pendaftaran ditutup pada 2 November 2016
• Seluruh karya esai yang masuk akan menjadi milik ASEAN Studies Center UGM
• Pemenang lomba diumumkan pada 9 November 2016
• Keputusan juri tidak dapat diganggu gugat

Ketentuan Esai

• Esai merupakan karya orisinal dari peserta
• Esai berbahasa Inggris
• Terdiri atas 2000-2500 kata
• Penulis boleh individu atau tim (maksimum 3 orang)
• Ukuran halaman A4
• Ukuran font 12
• Font Georgia
• Footnote and references dengan format Chicago Style
• Tulisan tidak pernah dipublikasikan di media apapun
• Non-Plagiarisme
• Pengumpulan esai melalui email ke aseansc@ugm.ac.id  dengan Subject : Essai Competition_Nama_Institusi

Penghargaan

• Juara 1: Uang pembinaaan sebesar Rp 1.000.000,- dan sertifikat
• Juara 2: Uang pembinaaan sebesar Rp 750.000,- dan sertifikat
• Juara 3: Uang pembinaaan sebesar Rp 500.000,- dan sertifikat
• 10 Esai terbaik akan dipublikasikan pada website ASEAN Studies Center UGM
• Seluruh peserta mendapatkan sertifikat

Pembayaran biaya pendaftaran

Pembayaran biaya pendaftaran sebesar Rp 30.000,- dapat melalui transfer ATM dengan tujuan sebagai berikut:

• Rekening Bank Mandiri 137-00-1197-149-2 atas nama Dio Herdiawan Tobing
• Rekening BCA 8610-215-727 atas nama Dio Herdiawan Tobing

Setelah peserta melakukan pembayaran harap melakukan konfirmasi ke  0896 314 958 16 (Andika)

Narahubung: Andika Putra (+62) 896 314 958 16

The Way of ASEAN Non-Confrontation: Backdoor Diplomacy or The Inability to Conduct Diplomacy in Public Spaces

Dio Herdiawan Tobing, Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

In the past few days, Indonesia’s first Right of Reply in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has attracted nation-wide Indonesia medias. Not because Indonesia’s statement was outstanding, but merely because of its firmness and the beauty of Indonesia’s representative. However, we found out that to some extent Indonesia’s statement focused heavily on sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as, the institutionalization of human rights commitment by the numbers of ratified conventions. This does not show any advantages. It opens a loophole that Indonesia was unable to show evidence of the progress made in Papua related to the human rights violation.

Meanwhile, the second Right of Reply embraced by Solomon Islands, shows intelligence, diplomatic, and well-researched information. Solomon Islands, though, only a very small archipelagic country showed its concern on human rights issue in West Papua by reminding Indonesia that although Indonesia has ratified the Convention against Torture (CAT), progress has not yet been made in Papua. In fact, Indonesia has not yet submitted its Periodic Review since 2008. The Solomon claimed that they received information on the lack of human rights protection of the Melanesian people in West Papua from the Respected UN members and head of civil societies.

Furthermore, it is also regretful to hear that in another right of reply utilized by Indonesia to respond against Solomon Islands, the Republic again justified that Solomon Islands’ concern has breached Indonesia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and claiming that Solomon Islands is trapped in trash information of the separatist group in West Papua. Again, without elaborating on what progress has been made and what form for commitment has been implemented by the Indonesian government towards promotion and protection of human rights in West Papua.

In fact, this occasion reminded us of Southeast Asian countries conducting their diplomatic activities. The ASEAN’s method of diplomacy, has been seen upholding the norm of sensitivity, politeness, non-confrontation and agreeability, and the principle of quiet. ASEAN members in their decision- and policy-making process have always refrained from criticizing others, claiming that criticizing other respective members of ASEAN will fall into the violation of non-interference principle and respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is similar, on what the delegation of Indonesia delivered in her right of reply, that the concern of Solomon Islands’ towards human rights situation in West Papua will only disrespect Indonesia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

However, in other occasion, ASEAN has a method famously known as ‘constructive-engagement’. ASEAN and particularly, Indonesia, have been progressively utilizing this tool to put concern on the human rights situation in Myanmar. In 2009 Indonesia had bilateral talk with Myanmar in regards to the Rohingya massacre. This occasion became a cornerstone because during the talk, it was the first time that Prime Minister Thein Sein finally acknowledged that he paid great attention to this issue. Myanmar finally accepted that Rohingya was also their concern. Wasn’t the talk breach Myanmar’s sovereignty and territorial integrity? Actually, it was too, yet the difference is the operation of ASEAN’s constructive engagement remains invisible. Because the diplomatic-negotiation has never been done in public spaces, claiming that it is the feature of ASEAN’s diplomacy, backdoor diplomacy, or for some, how ASEAN conducts its intra- or inter-ASEAN relations have become a model named as “Asian Diplomacy”

Therefore, reflecting on the case of Solomon Islands-Indonesia in the UNGA and Indonesia-Myanmar in ASEAN, the conduct of ASEAN Diplomacy shows only an excuse for ASEAN in particular, Indonesia, upon their inability to demonstrate a proper diplomatic behavior in public spaces.

In the Thick of Fear and Idea: Wither ASEAN Centrality?

Dedi Dinarto

Long before the discourse on the future of ASEAN centrality, S. Rajaratnam and Thanat Khoman have put their respective ideas on the ontological part of ASEAN, meaning that where ASEAN should depart on its characteristic, thus shape the way its interact at both internal and external level.

Rajaratnam pointed out that the long shadow of Cold War has shaped this region as the “states of fear” where every countries sought to defend themselves from external threat, and provide baseline to construct ‘common threat’. Given the situation of the escalating tension between Soviet Union and the United States, ASEAN chose to setback its activism not to show off their teeth instead of barricading Southeast Asia from the influx of communism influence.

On the other side, Thanat Khoman contrastively derived his idea on how to place the ideal and peaceful cooperation, given the framework to set aside the rising tension of konfrontasi of Indonesia and Malaysia, and other disputes between neighboring countries. He put that the ASEAN should represent a constitutive regime serving promise towards more cohesive, peaceful, and stable condition.

Between those two prominent views, it remains logical that ASEAN has produced 1967 Bangkok Declaration, Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), and Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) pacts to achieve their objectives. In spite of departing from different views on ASEAN at the first place, these two ideas can be bridged under the framework of winning the security and stability of the region. Neither national interest nor external parties are regarded crucial at that time.

Reflecting from the event of historical sociology between Rajaratnam and Thanat Khoman provides us the outlook of how ASEAN is able to determine its centrality.

However, it should be admitted that the composite interaction between ASEAN member states and its strategic partners nowadays has pushed political scientists and practitioners to look at ASEAN not only as a unproblematic regional body, but as a constructive and flexible pivot amidst tricky surroundings.

This is the matter of how we think about ‘ASEAN Centrality’ as an idea, which implies the source of power of ASEAN as a regional body. The governmentality has proceed to far serving the elites’ interest which surrounded by state-centric approach and calculation.

Not to do away from the dominant discourse, the elites could provide breakthrough creating intensive and fruitful cooperation on more human-centric issues. Negotiating major countries in the region to cooperate in non-traditional security issues that are quite transnational and require high and strict coordination and control mechanisms. Giving the example in how to attract China to aware on the issue of disasters and marine safety, and terrorism in the region would shed light on.

Therefore, this reflective approach underpin the way on how ASEAN member states could define their interests based on human-centric prioritization, and thus put up those issues to the responsibility of strategic partner countries. By doing this way, ASEAN can find its centrality amidst the complexities of international politics in the region. In other words, the centrality must be seen as a phenomenon coherent to change and intersubjective configuration.

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

ASEAN fights against trans-border crime

This article was published on 7 September 2016 in Jakarta Post

Dedi Dinarto – Research Assistant at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

Given the rising concerns over transnational organized crime in Southeast Asia, the 28th ASEAN Summit in Vientiane this week will face an uphill challenge. This holds true as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported a rise in production of illicit drugs and an expansion of the synthetic drug market in the region after the implementation of the ASEAN Community last year.

It is inevitable that Laos should hold up the discussion to address the issue of transnational crime for several reasons.

Vientiane’s ASEAN chairmanship this year was viewed with pessimism when it came to the issue of the South China Sea. Some of the reasons originated from Laos’ landlocked geographical conditions, which allows it to disregard the security of the sea as crucial and coherent for economic interests, and the lavish influence of China over Laos through the latest cooperation scheme, namely the Mohan-Boten Economic Cooperation Zone.

However, the importance of associating Laos’ leadership with the transnational crime issue is mainly due to the fact that the country is part of the Golden Triangle, which serves as one of the producers of narcotics and a drug transit point for shipments to North America, Europe and other regions in Asia.

Laos directly contributes to the increasing production and expansion of such transnational crime networks. At the same time, the number of arrests related to drugs has tripled in Laos over the last half decade.

On the other hand, Laos has completely ratified the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime with the protocol that cancels out the potential benefits it could gain from the narcotics industries.

Moreover, on a broader level, Kuala Lumpur’s leadership last year intensified the fight against transnational organized crime. This development is not supposed to decline under Laos’ chairmanship.

Consequently, the upcoming ASEAN Summit is to manifest the points that have been set forth and agreed within the ASEAN Regional Forum Statement on Strengthening Cooperation in the Management of Cross-Border Movement of Criminals and the formulation of a fresh ASEAN plan of action agreed at the previous ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC).

However, in that agenda, the ASEAN member states are supposed to overlook the inter-governmental decision-making process, which is inadequate to combat transnational crime. The failure, according to professor of international affairs Ralf Emmers, was not only caused by domestic circumstances but also by its inbuilt resistance to action and institutional reforms and its inability to criminalize transnational crime.

Besides, they only focused on non-binding and unspecific measures without addressing the question of funding, setting target dates, or establishing monitoring mechanisms to assess progress.

For example, the 10th AMMTC noted the importance of growing of transnational crime as a threat against regional security.

Thus, the response was to broaden their working coverage area by adding the illicit trafficking in wildlife, timber and people smuggling to the provision involving drug trafficking, economic crimes, human trafficking, piracy, money laundering, terrorism, weapon smuggling and cybercrime. Unfortunately, this initiative demonstrated the statist yet similar approach that has been taken by ASEAN member states since 1997.

The effort to securitize transnational organized crime has been successful, but leaves behind the regional practice to combat such an issue.

Rather than having an intensive approach toward the regional threat, ASEAN member states prefer to adopt a regional agreement if it will work significantly at the national level. Therefore, there is a need for shifting the paradigm toward “shared sovereignty”.

If regional security was primarily measured based on the absence of a threat to each nation’s security, then it is now time to see ASEAN as a whole community. The term of “community” adopted at the end of 2015 duly signifies that ASEAN should move from its state-centric security into a human-centric security.

Is it possible to hear a similar voice to that which came out of Thailand’s then foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan in June 1998, who proposed to amend the basic principle of non-intervention?

What may happen in the days following the ASEAN Summit and its “dianoetic” slogan of “Turning vision into reality for a dynamic ASEAN Community” will provide the answers.

Southeast Asia: Refugee Crisis and the Customary Law of Non-Refoulement

Dio Tobing – Intern at ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

If the European Union is still dealing with mass influx of forced migration from the Middle East, Southeast Asian refugee crisis has also been going on for more than years. These refugees are mainly coming from places, which experience worst cases of human tragedy including political instability at their place of origins, conflict-zones, and human rights violations. At this very moment, ASEAN member countries have not yet reached any agreement on how to respond towards this issue, which is why the responsibility then goes back to its members individually.

Due to this lack of agreement within the forum, many people tend to blame the inability and incompetence of ASEAN members in responding this issue due to their majority position as non-parties the 1951 Refugee Convention. Many have also argued that the international community should pressure and urge ASEAN member states to start becoming the parties of the Refugee Convention 1951, as there are only two ASEAN members who have ratified the convention, which are Cambodia and the Philippines.

However, does ratifying such international law reflect states compliance towards its provision? Is international law a manipulable façade for power politics? (Koskenniemi, 2011) Even in the reality of ASEAN region, countries who are highly associated with the issue of refugee have constructively showed progress responding with refugee crisis. In mid-2015, the Ministerial Meeting on Irregular Movement of People in Southeast Asia have successfully adopted a joint statement stressing states responsibilities and obligations to provide humanitarian assistance towards irregular migrants initiated by Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The governments of these three countries have committed to deliver humanitarian assistance and temporary shelters to those in need and those who stranded at the sea.

Moreover, these three countries also have their domestic mechanism in dealing with this problem similar to the provision of the 1951 Refugee Convention. For instance, Indonesia government refers to the Letter of the Directorate General of Immigration No. F-IL.01.10-1297. Government of Indonesia emphasizes that those who are seeking asylum in Indonesia would not be deported. The government also stresses that they are working in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) when handling the case of refugee. The provision of this letter is also in accordance with the principle of Non-Refoulement (Justinar, 2011).

Not only Indonesia, Thailand also stands as state not party to the Refugee Convention, however, the country has worked hard in providing temporary shelters along the Thai-Burma border, currently accommodating more than 105.000 refugees (EU, 2016). For Malaysia, there are currently more than 150.000 refugees registered by the UNHCR residing in the country (Lokman, 2016).

These three major ASEAN member countries do not become party to the Refugee Convention yet to some extent, their actions and policies reflected their compliance the fundamental principle codified into the convention, the Customary Principle of Non-Refoulement. Recognizing that the prohibition of refoulement stands on the same level of prohibition of torture as peremptory norm of international law, or jus cogens (UNHCR, 2006). These major countries affected by mass influx in Southeast Asian region have acted accordingly, as bound by the Customary International Law on prohibition of refoulement, although not becoming state parties to 1951 Refugee Convention. Even if there are no regional cooperation or agreement on responding towards the issue and although majority ASEAN members do not ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention, some states are in cooperation among each other as well as act unilaterally to overcome this issue in accordance to national policy.

2016 Student Working Paper: Call for Paper

ASEAN Studies Center (ASC) FISIPOL Universitas Gadjah Mada in collaboration with INKA KOMAHI, encourage you IR Students across Indonesia to contribute your paper for Student Working Paper ASC UGM 2016.

We’ll be issuing a call for papers related to Human Security in Southeast Asia. Possible topics include, but are not limited to, the following :
– Poverty
– Human Trafficking
– Migrant workers
– Terrorism
– Refugees
– Natural Disasters
– Pollution

Glimpse of Hope: Student-led Protest in Malaysia

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.