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.

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.

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/

Dedi Dinarto, Asisten Riset Pusat Kajian ASEAN UGM

Berakhirnya tahun 2015 menjadi titik awal bagi integrasi masyarakat ASEAN yang menekankan aspek ‘people-centered’ sebagai fokus baru di kawasan. Beberapa dokumen ASEAN telah memasukkan istilah ini dengan tujuan agar program-program yang diimplementasikan tidak hanya berorientasi pada pembangunan negara, akan tetapi juga melibatkan masyarakat dalam proses integrasi. Merespon hal tersebut, ASCC dibentuk guna memberi celah partisipasi dan manfaat bagi masyarakat, berkelanjutan, kuat, dan dinamis. Namun, hingga saat ini, terminologi ‘komunitas’ ini tidak diletakkan senyatanya untuk mengatasi permasalahan sosial. Di sisi yang lain, ASCC hanya merupakan pelengkap untuk meningkatkan sentimen dan mobilisasi tenaga kerja di kawasan. Maka dari itu, perlu ada kajian untuk melihat sejauh mana ASCC benar-benar merangkul konteks ‘komunitas’.

Berhubungan dengan isu sosial, artikel ini akan mengangkat pentingnya dialog antar-agama dalam menciptakan masyarakat ASEAN yang harmonis dan rukun. Kondisi nyata menggambarkan bahwa konflik antar-agama kerap terjadi di Asia Tenggara. Misalnya, konflik antara umat Islam dan Kristen di Indonesia, umat Buddha dan Islam Patani di Thailand, umat Buddha dan Islam Rohingya di Myanmar, umat Islam Mindanao dan Kristen Katolik di Filipina, dan sebagainya. Untuk itu, keberadaan ini tidak seharusnya dipandang hanya sebagai keberagaman semata, akan tetapi perlu untuk disusun dalam konteks pluralistik yang mengakomodasi eksistensi dari seluruh agama.

Kendati demikian, pembahasan ini perlu untuk digiring pada beberapa pertanyaan lanjutan, yakni sejauh mana ASCC telah menjamin toleransi antar-agama, dan bagaimana seharusnya masyarakat berperan dalam memperkuat agenda dialog antar-agama?

Membaca Relevansi ASCC
Pembentukan ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC) diinisiasi sebagai upaya untuk menciptakan suasana bagi setiap orang, agar merasa sebagai bagian dari masyarakat ASEAN, dan mencari jalan keluar atas permasalahan sosial yang cukup kompleks di kawasan. Turunan dari dua tujuan ini telah dijabarkan di dalam Cetak Biru ASCC 2025 secara detail guna menciptakan masyarakat ASEAN yang inklusif, berkelanjutan, kuat, dan dinamis. ASCC juga secara spesifik menaruh perhatian pada isu toleransi, pemahaman, dan penghormatan sebagai bentuk penyesuaian terhadap multikulturalisme dalam salah satu tolak ukur strategis, yakni ‘Menuju ASEAN yang Adaptif dan Terbuka’. Dengan kata lain, ASCC berupaya untuk menjamin adanya keharmonisan dalam masyarakat ASEAN.

Di dalam Cetak Biru ASCC 2025, salah satu isu yang dianggap penting guna menciptakan masyarakat ASEAN yang terbuka dan adaptif adalah isu antaragama. Isu ini dianggap penting guna mendorong adanya budaya toleransi, pemahaman, penghormatan terhadap agama, dan dialog antar-agama. Menurut David Burrell, dialog antar-agama adalah sebuah upaya menciptakan jalan baru untuk memahami diri sendiri dan orang lain sehingga dapat menciptakan jalur persahabatan dan apresiasi antar umat beragama (Burrell, 2004:196). Sebagai salah satu ikhtiar untuk saling bertukar pengetahuan dan pemahaman antara agama yang satu dengan yang lainnya, dialog antar-agama kerap diselenggarakan dengan melibatkan berbagai tokoh agama guna menghindari misinterpretasi. Dengan kata lain, upaya pluralistik ini diadakan untuk mereduksi konflik antar agama. Pada titik ini, ASCC telah menjamin adanya peluang untuk memperkuat isu antar agama sebagai salah satu penyokong terciptanya keharmonisan di ASEAN.

Dalam segi implementasi, poin mengenai isu antaragama telah diupayakan jauh sebelum dipublikasinya Cetak Biru ASCC oleh Indonesia. Wujud komitmen Indonesia untuk melaksanakan poin dalam ASCC tersebut adalah dengan menjadi tuan rumah pertama penyelenggara Bali Interfaith Dialogue di bawah Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). Tidak hanya itu, pasca penyelenggaraan, Indonesia menetapkan inisiatif untuk membangun International Center for Religious and Cultural Cooperation (The Jogja Center). Di sisi yang lain, Filipina juga menunjukkan komitmennya dengan menjadi tuan rumah ketujuh untuk forum internasional yang sama. Kelebihan dari penyelenggaraan di Manila adalah adanya rancangan pra-acara yang melibatkan tokoh agama berusia muda untuk berdiskusi dan berdialog. Melalui dua penyelenggaraan ini, Manila lebih menunjukkan adanya keterlibatan masyarakat secara komprehensif dalam isu dialog antar-agama, sedangkan Indonesia hanya diwakili oleh representasi negara.

Namun, dalam konteks ini, persoalan isu antaragama masih berada dalam penanganan pemerintah. Pengadaan fora dialog antar-agama cenderung berkesan eksklusif dan tidak melibatkan kelompok-kelompok lain yang tergolong ‘radikal’. Padahal, di sisi yang lain, isu sosial semacam ini juga menjadi tanggung jawab masyarakat sebagai komunitas ASEAN. Masyarakat sebagai elemen terdekat yang melingkupi hubungan antar-agama dapat dimanfaatkan sebagai jalur untuk tidak hanya sekadar membangun, namun juga memperkuat agenda dialog antar-agama. Di tingkat yang berbeda, hal ini juga dapat mendorong pemaknaan terhadap terminologi ‘komunitas’ dalam ASCC 2025.

Mematahkan Paradigma ‘Elite-Driven’
Dalam teori hegemoni kultural, Antonio Gramsci menjelaskan bahwa dalam sebuah struktur masyarakat, terdapat dua golongan yang dibagi sesuai tingkatannya, yakni elite dan massa. Gramsci membangun konsep masyarakat modern, dimana elit ditempatkan pada bagian atas sementara massa  pada bagian bawah, yang sarat dengan dominasi kelas atas terhadap kelas bawah. Ia mengatakan hal itu sebagai hegemoni. Namun, menurutnya, tatanan semacam ini seharusnya dapat dilawan dengan melihat pada potensi massa sebagai intelektual organik. Dengan begitu, konfigurasi hubungan antara elit dan massa dapat diubah melalui dekonstruksi tatanan tersebut.

Demikian pula, dalam beragam diskursus, integrasi ASEAN cenderung dipandang sebagai sebuah proses penyatuan negara-negara yang berbasis pada intervensi elit. Dirunut dari visi dan misinya, rancangan integrasi ASEAN yang meletakkan kerjasama ekonomi sebagai tujuan utama harus diikuti oleh situasi politik yang stabil di tingkat nasional maupun regional. Dengan begitu, kontrol politik dan dominasi pemerintah adalah konsekuensi logis, dimana pemerintahan yang otoriter mulai berkuasa pasca Perang Dingin.

Namun, implementasi agenda Komunitas ASEAN 2015 di kawasan, dan relevansi mengenai dominasi pemerintah mulai dipertanyakan ketika krisis ekonomi melanda wilayah Asia Tenggara. Di saat yang sama, perluasan jaringan masyarakat dalam bentuk kerjasama antar lembaga swadaya masyarakat (LSM), aktivis, dan stakeholders lainnya mulai intensif dikerjakan oleh masyarakat. Beberapa LSM yang aktif dalam isu antar-agama, antara lain Asia Pacific Interfaith Network yang menaruh perhatian pada isu antar-agama di kawasan ASEAN, Asian Resource Foundation yang mendirikan kantor di wilayah Myanmar dan Thailand, dan International Center for Law and Religion Studies yang bekerja sama secara intensif dengan Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) dan Coalition of Indonesian NGOs for International Human Rights Advocacy di Asia Tenggara. Paling tidak, hal ini menunjukkan tumbuhnya kesadaran kelas di tingkat massa terhadap kegagalan pemerintah negara ASEAN dalam menangani persoalan antar-agama. Maka dari itu, momentum ini patut dilihat sebagai modal untuk menginisiasi dekonstruksi tatanan pemerintahan yang cenderung solid dan kaku.

Pentingnya Kebebasan Berpendapat
Dalam tataran linguistik, untuk membangun sebuah wacana yang berkaitan dengan isu-isu sosial, tidak terkecuali isu antar-agama, maka setiap individu atau kelompok perlu berdialog guna membaca ulang titik singgung di antara perbedaan yang ada. Upaya dialektis ini cenderung dikemas dalam bentuk diskusi guna mencapai inter-subjektivitas (kesepakatan antara subjek-subjek terhadap nilai tertentu). Namun, jika berbincang soal kebebasan berpendapat di ASEAN, maka sesungguhnya kebebasan berpendapat merupakan persoalan krusial untuk dibahas.

Untuk mendorong adanya dialog antar-agama yang intensif di wilayah Asia Tenggara adalah tantangan besar bagi masyarakat di negara-negara semidemokratis atau monarki, seperti Malaysia, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Singapura, Brunei Darussalam, Kamboja, dan Vietnam. Kekuasaan mutlak yang dipegang oleh pemerintah cenderung membatasi ruang gerak masyarakat, sehingga kesadaran intelektual yang muncul pun tidak dapat berkembang menjadi suatu political force yang memadai. Tanpa adanya political force, maka pewacanaan mengenai pentingnya dialog antar-agama guna mencegah terjadinya konflik di tingkat nasional akan sangat sulit diadvokasikan.

Namun, di sisi yang lain, sebagai salah satu negara yang telah menaruh perhatian besar pada isu antar-agama, Indonesia memiliki potensi untuk menjadi promotor penguatan dialog antar-agama di tingkat regional. Diwakili oleh AM Fachir, sebagai Wakil Menteri Luar Negeri Indonesia, ia berpendapat bahwa dialog antar-agama perlu diintensifkan untuk menghindarkan munculnya berbagai konflik yang bersinggungan erat dengan agama. Tidak hanya itu, munculnya LSM yang bergerak di bidang antar-agama, seperti Institute for Interfaith Dialogue in Indonesia (Interfidei) menjadi bukti kuatnya komitmen untuk mencari solusi atas permasalahan isu agama di Indonesia. Meskipun demikian, hal ini tidak secara keseluruhan meniadakan konflik antar-agama di Indonesia.

Pada titik ini, perlu adanya kesadaran untuk memanfaatkan jaringan-jaringan antar-agama yang telah terbentuk sebagai titik awal. Keterlibatan dalam fora semacam ini dapat memberi kontribusi ide kepada masyarakat di negara semi-demokratis atau absolut mengenai kebebasan berpendapat. Dengan kata lain, masyarakat tidak lagi mengandalkan pemerintah untuk belajar memahami ide-ide mengenai kebebasan dan toleransi yang relevan dengan tujuan menciptakan keharmonisan di tingkat negara dan regional. Di saat yang bersamaan, LSM dan aktivis dapat memanfaatkan kondisi ini untuk memperluas jaringan kerjasama.

Kesimpulan
Maka dari itu, dapat disimpulkan bahwa ASCC telah memberikan fondasi bagi pengupayaan toleransi antar-agama di dalam Cetak Biru ASCC 2025. Namun, hal ini masih berada dalam kendali pemerintah, dimana tidak ada penjaminan secara mutlak atas solusi terhadap permasalahan antar-agama yang ada. Di sisi yang lain, masyarakat perlu untuk membangun kesadaran agar tidak terjebak dalam kondisi ‘elite-driven’ dengan cara membentuk dan atau memanfaatkan jaringan antaragama yang telah bekerja. Dengan begitu, penguatan masyarakat untuk mendorong upaya dialog antaragama di kawasan dapat tercapai.

(Artikel ini sudah dipublikasikan dalam Newsletter Interfidei Edisi Juli-Desember 2015.)

Photo source: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/–vqzKGGEXjs/TXrfiAe9y9I/AAAAAAAAATc/c2dL1UOxTEY/s1600/candle_Candle_light_4010.jpg

Photo source: https://ripplesoftruth.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/kuala-lumpur-25.jpg

Habibah Hermanadi, Intern staff ASEAN Studies Center UGM

In 2012, The Edge Malaysia published a concise explanation regarding Malaysia’s position and how it sees ASEAN.  It stated that ASEAN has never been the cornerstone of Malaysia’s foreign policy and he emphasized on the fact that the condition will not likely to be altered anytime soon. Malaysia’s foreign policy will aim for her own national goals which is becoming a developed country; the agenda included the need of cohesive nation, constructing a strong, effective, transparent and accountable state that is responsive to her citizens, transforming the economy into a human capital intensive, deepening the democratic form of government, high income one to achieve global competitiveness and recognition (Alagappa, 2012). Lastly, Malaysia opted to ensure national security and regional stability, and only from that factor Malaysia took the existence of ASEAN into account. Was the analysis proven right that there will be not much of alteration by the Malaysian government regarding its position for the ASEAN?

According to the latest publication by the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia had shifted its vision and as a state it has explicitly accepted ASEAN as the cornerstone of her foreign policy. It mentioned the urgency for Malaysia as Malaysia is one of the founding members of ASEAN, therefore the foreign policy of Malaysia continues to emphasize on the relevance and importance of ASEAN as the forum and catalyst for regional dialogue.  The principality of Malaysian foreign policy had been divided into specified pillars, mainly it includes in maintaining peaceful relations with all countries regardless of its ideology and political system; adopting an independent, non-aligned, and principled stance in regional and international diplomatic affairs; forging close relations and economic partnerships with all nations, particularly with ASEAN and other regional friends; promoting peace and stability in the region through capacity building and conflict resolution measures; playing an influential leadership role as Chair of the ASEAN, Non-aligned Movement (NAM) and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC); participating actively and meaningfully in the United Nations, especially in the efforts to end injustice and oppression, and to uphold international law; and lastly projecting Malaysia as a leading example of a tolerant and progressive Islamic nation (Ministry of Foreign Affairs Malaysia, 2016).

Malaysia’s Pragmatism

According to the given principals of Malaysia’s foreign policy, it reflected the pragmatic way of shaping its foreign policy in order to gain Malaysia’s best interest. As Datuk Seri Anifah Aman mentioned on the dynamic of Malaysia’s foreign policy that the status quo requires Malaysia to implement its foreign policy initiatives and make it a realization in order to remain relevant and necessary in response to changing regional dynamics and the ‘recessionary global economy’,  Anifah said that this will enable the country to continue building on its good relations with strategic partners and to have more focused relations with key countries (Divakaran, 2016). To assure its chairmanship role in ASEAN, Malaysia has also been promoting the idea of strengthening ASEAN’s internal institutions, particularly by the ASEAN Secretariat.  Moreover, Malaysia has launched the idea of AEC 2025, which builds upon ASEAN’s earlier idea of a ‘single market and production base’ extending it further to include sustainable economic development (Das, 2015). However, the chairmanship failed to meet its expected target of further negotiation on the status of South China Sea, Malaysia was expecting to gain statements on the South China Sea during its April Summit and ASEAN Foreign Ministers Meeting in August, yet they could not secure a joint declaration for the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting in November. Nonetheless the failure of joint declaration could not solemnly be pinpointed on Malaysia’s chairmanship but also on the mechanism of ASEAN itself, the ASEAN Dispute Settlement Mechanism has been claimed as slow and redundant since it is subject to parties’ consent on such measures; an opposed party can thus prevent the ASEAN High Council from being formed (Nguyen, 2015).

As a state Malaysia’s foreign policy really portrayed the domestics’ tendencies in Malaysia, starting from the pragmatic approach of foreign policy pairing it up with economic preferences in fostering economic environment for the other ASEAN member states as how the agenda will be fruitful for Malaysia and furthering ASEAN economic integration. Although due to this blunt tendency and its current chairmanship position it is only fair to question where Malaysia will position itself in between the Trans Pacific Partnership and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, its back and forth reaction signaled others that Malaysia wanted the best of both world Malaysia’s, considering that Malaysia’s membership in the TPP does not imply that she is shifting away from China and moving closer to the United States. Much like Singapore, Malaysia will spread both its wings, courting the United States and China; extending concessions to both in equal measure or as opportunities arise, regardless of their source (Nambiar, 2016). Where does Malaysia stand now cannot be easily defined, as we can see Malaysia stands for itself, despite of its current Chairmanship Malaysia is utilizing its position to gain what is needed for the country. Moreover, Malaysia juggles over the influence of superpowers out of its strategic means. Future steps are being observed by many, as Malaysia is heading either the TPP or RCEP and her decision will affect the dynamic of the region.

Source:

Alagappa, M. (2016, November 19). Is ASEAN Malaysia’s Cornerstone of Foreign Policy? The Edge Malaysia. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from <http://www.isis.org.my/attachments/1288_MA_TheEdge_19Nov2012.pdf/>

Das, S. (2015, December 5). Evaluating Malaysia’s ASEAN chairmanship. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from <http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/12/05/evaluating-malaysias-asean-chairmanship/>

Divakaran, P. (2016, January 07). Anifah defends Malaysia’s foreign policy record. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from <http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/01/07/anifah-defends-foreign-policy-record/>

Nambiar, S. (2016, February 13). Is the TPP really a leap forward for Malaysia? Sun Daily.

Nguyen, C. (2015, November 21). ASEAN’s uncertain stance in the South China Sea. Retrieved

April 25, 2016, from <http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/11/21/aseans-uncertain-stance-in-the-south-china-sea/>

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia. (2016). Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia – Objectives. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from <http://www.kln.gov.my/web/guest/objectives/>