CREATING A DRUG-FREE ASEAN: HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?

/0 Comments/in /by

By Jonathan Evert Rayon

Based on the World Drug Report in 2018, 31 million people worldwide suffered from drug use disorders resulting in millions enduring health risks such as hepatitis C and HIV. Drug trafficking is defined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as illicit trade which involves the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of substances subject to drug prohibition laws, and is a prevalent issue in Southeast Asia. As discussed at the 7th ASEAN Drug Monitoring Network (ADMN) during 5th-7th March 2019, drug cases in 2018 experienced an increase, with most drug cases taking place in Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. The fact that over 90 percent of drug offences were conducted by ASEAN nationals despite serious measures taken by member countries, such as the Philippines’ war on drugs or Indonesia’s potential death penalty, emphasises the realisation of a Drug-Free ASEAN remains a challenge.

The Problem of Drug Trafficking in Southeast Asia

Drug trafficking is a major security threat in Southeast Asia which targets people from different backgrounds, ages and genders. Based on the ASEAN Drug Monitoring Report in 2017, there were 357,443 illicit drug cases in the region, with 64.6% of them involving Amphetamine-Type Stimulants (ATS). In 2017, there were more than 300,000 drug users admitted to drug treatment. Furthermore, the worsening drug situation in the region is also linked to ASEAN’s geographical proximity to the Golden Triangle. This 950,000-square kilometre area, where the borders of Thailand, Myanmar, Laos and China meet, has a reputation as the centre of the world’s drug trafficking.

In spite of not being a drug producing country, Cambodia has been affected by regional and international drug trafficking. Located in the Golden Triangle, Cambodia is used as a transit place before drug syndicates transport the illegal substances to third markets. There was also a steep increase of 35.1 percent in the total seizure of drugs in 2017 in this country. In Indonesia, a country’s population which makes up slightly over 40% of ASEAN’s total population, the drug situation also remains problematic. In 2017, the National Narcotics Board and Indonesian National Police uncovered more than 51,000 drug cases with the total seizure of 151.5 tons of cannabis and 3.8 tons of crystalline methamphetamine (or shabu). Similar cases were also reported by Myanmar and Thailand where drug traffickers used a number of techniques in concealing drugs to be distributed or transported to other areas. Although drug abuse may vary, narcotics, namely cannabis, heroin, opium, methamphetamine tablets and crystalline methamphetamine, have been recognised as five major problems in every ASEAN country. Despite the alarming status, data related to the number of drug users remain imprecise as many ASEAN member countries do not conduct regular surveys while some do not even conduct them at all. This lack of consistent data creates its own unique problems.

ASEAN’s Cooperation in Dealing with the Problem of Drug Trafficking

The idea to create a Drug-Free ASEAN first emerged at the 31st ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, held in July 1998, where ASEAN Foreign Ministers signed the Joint Declaration for a Drug-Free ASEAN. The Declaration asserted each country’s commitment to eradicate the production, processing, trafficking and use of illicit drugs in Southeast Asia by the year 2020. Although the idea was formalised in 1998, ASEAN has started to demonstrate its commitment to addressing the issue of drug trafficking since its establishment in 1967. In 2000, at the 33rd ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, all countries agreed to advance the target year to realise a drug-free region to 2015, even though the goal of Drug-Free ASEAN was not yet decided. It was in 2007 that the Association formulated the vision of Drug-Free ASEAN 2015 which was to successfully and effectively control illicit drugs activities and mitigate its negative consequences to society.

The vision of Drug-Free ASEAN 2015 was highlighted in 2009 by the adoption of the ASEAN Work Plan on Combating Illicit Drug Production, Trafficking and Use 2009-2015. The implementation of the Plan was regularly monitored and assessed by ASEAN Senior Officials on Drug Matters (ASOD) and UNODC. Based on its final assessment in 2014, UNODC recommended ASEAN to take significant steps to reduce supply and demand since challenges were still widespread and new threats were emerging. As a result, the regional body adopted the ASEAN Work Plan on Securing Communities against Illicit Drugs 2016-2025 as a continuation of previous work – proposing several activities, starting from preventive education, law enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation, research, alternative development and extra-regional cooperation. In addition, ASEAN member countries have also been cooperating with other non-member countries to implement the ASEAN Cooperation Plan to Tackle Illicit Drug Production and Trafficking in the Golden Triangle 2017-2019.

Even though drug abuse conditions may vary from one country to another, it is important for ASEAN not to leave any countries to face the problem alone. Firstly, a regional problem requires a regional solution. Instead of focusing on addressing the issue alone, ASEAN countries must acknowledge that drug trafficking is often a transnational crime conducted by an extensive criminal network operating beyond national borders. This implies that no country in the region is immune to drug trafficking as each can be targeted as a transit place or a prospective market. As an example, Thailand authorities explained that a large amount of drugs had been moved from neighbouring Laos into Thailand before they were taken south towards Malaysia. Secondly, complimenting national policies which have been implemented by countries, thereby strengthening regional cooperation to combat the issue, also signifies ASEAN’s foundation as a unified organisation. Since its formation, ASEAN has always adhered to one of its principles of effective cooperation among its members. This principle was reaffirmed when all member countries agreed to create a resilient community in a peaceful, secure and stable region with the ASEAN Political-Security Community. Thus, a comprehensive approach is needed to respond to this non-traditional security threat.

All in all, a number of responses which have been taken indicate ASEAN’s resolute commitment to tackling the issue of drug trafficking. However, to promote a Drug-Free ASEAN, all countries must work side by side to get to grips with this non-conventional threat. Therefore, several actions can be taken. Due to different national capabilities, it is recommended that ASEAN establish a region-wide capacities curriculum for law enforcement and provide common language training since the lack of a common language often limits the ability to communicate effectively among countries. Furthermore, it is also crucial for ASEAN member countries to enhance information and experience sharing activities, especially related to border seizure to help create effective strategies to prevent criminals from evading border security checks. In line with recommendations by UNODC, ASEAN is also advised to cooperate with numerous non-governmental organisations and establish regional monitoring to measure the effectiveness of civic awareness campaigns in reducing the demand as high demand is one of the most contributing factors of the increase in drug cases in Southeast Asia.

Jonathan Evert Rayon is an intern in ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

OUT OF JAKARTA: RELOCATION OF INDONESIA’S CAPITAL AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

/0 Comments/in /by

By Truston YU 

Image: Merdeka Palace Changing Guard by Gunawan Kartapranata

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo recently announced plans to relocate Indonesia’s capital city to outside Java. Following Myanmar’s move from Yangon to Naypyidaw, Indonesia will be the second country in modern Southeast Asia to relocate its capital city. There are good reasons for such a decision, but there are also many implications which are worth noting.

Since the Dutch East Indies colonial period, the settlement of Batavia has been the de facto capital city. Over the generations, it has gradually evolved into the modern Jakarta as we know it. With the number of inhabitants equivalent to the next three largest cities combined, Jakarta is the primate city of Indonesia. Together with the neighboring towns and regencies including Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi, the Greater Jakarta megalopolis, known as “Jabodetabek,” boasts a population of some 28 million, comprising ten percent of Indonesia’s total population.

Rapid urban development is not without its side effects. The living standard is deteriorating, so is the environment. The congested streets, along with the heavy air pollution caused by the traffic, are a nightmare for commuting workers and students alike.

Jakarta has long been prone to flooding. Most recently, it has been pointed out that the city is rapidly sinking, and 25% of its land area may be submerged within a decade. Clearly, the massive population is taking its toll on the city’s very foundations.

Then-Governor Basuki had put in efforts to mitigate the floods by clearing the waterways; Incumbent Governor Anies Baswedan also pointed that the Jakarta government “had focused on expanding infiltration wells to help the soil better absorb rainwater.” Whether such policies are enough to turn the tides, is questionable.

Java dominates every aspect of the country, leading to the dissatisfaction of other islands. While it is undeniable that Java is the most populated island and is situated at the center of the country, Indonesia has a much greater diversity which seems to have been overshadowed by the focus on Java. The incumbent government has put in efforts in channeling investment to other islands such as Papua, and the economic corridors of North Kalimantan, North Sulawesi, North Sumatra, and Bali. A capital city outside of Java would be a symbolic acknowledgment of the non-Java communities, a further manifestation of the principle “Unity in Diversity.”

There is a dilemma regarding the relocation of offices away from Jakarta. If there are too few jobs that would be moved to the new capital, the commuter congestion problem would hardly be alleviated at all. On the other hand, if there is a large number of jobs that would be relocated to the new capital, the Greater Jakarta region risks structural unemployment.

The business sector has raised their concerns too. Since some of the businesses would need frequent visits to government offices for lobbying and matters pertaining to regulations, it would be inconvenient if the government agencies are located far away from the business headquarters. Corporate and government are, after all, closely related. However, in any case, Indonesia would not be the first – precedents of New York City, Toronto, and Shanghai have shown how the hub of business activities do not have to be the capital cities.

Moving the capital also entails moving the embassies. Indonesia plays a significant role in the global arena and Jakarta is home to some one hundred ambassadors from countries which share diplomatic ties with Indonesia. Though it may be troublesome for the diplomatic missions currently based in Jakarta, a constructed capital city could allow for a better arrangement for the foreign offices – a designated district could be drawn out for all the embassies, bringing convenience and allowing for a more centralized security measure. The current embassies in Jakarta would most likely remain consulates-general given the economic importance of the city and size of the expatriate community.

The fate of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat would be an interesting point as well. It is likely that the ASEAN Secretariat will remain in its location on Jl. Sisingamangaraja. After all, there is no compelling reason whatsoever for a regional intergovernmental organization to have to relocate together with a member state’s capital.

The implication of this is that while Jakarta may no longer be the capital of Indonesia, it remains the seat of ASEAN and could arguably be called the capital of “Southeast Asia.”

This project is not and should not be seen as the abandonment of Southeast Asia’s greatest megalopolis. Moving the capital is not the end for Jakarta or Jabodetabek – it will still be the place where most economic activities take place. Jakarta has to continue developing, improving its public transport infrastructure, and tackling its environmental challenges.

A new chapter for Jakarta will begin soon – retaining its primacy as the center of Southeast Asia’s largest megalopolis but tasked with challenges to raise the living standards of its citizens and prevent itself from sinking into the muds.

 

Truston is self-proclaimed Southeast Asianist, politics sophomore and research assistant on Southeast Asia at the University of Hong Kong. Born in Singapore but calls the West Java town of Cirebon home, Truston considers Southeast Asia as an integral part of their identity. Outside Southeast Asian Studies, Truston’s research interests also include Public International Law and Sustainability. 

My email contact is trustonyuofficial@gmail.com

ASEAN, EU collaboration needed to resolve palm oil dispute

/1 Comment/in /by

Image: Palm oil mill in Sabah, Malaysia © CEphoto, Uwe Aranas

The failure  to upgrade ties between the EU and ASEAN to a new strategic dialogue partnership at the 22nd ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting was another blemish on relations between the most institutionalized regional groupings of the developed and developing world.

The outcome of the talks, however, do not come as a surprise and reflect that the EU is more concerned with upgrading relations than ASEAN. ASEAN member states, meanwhile, are using the interregional negotiations to leverage national agendas.

While the EU and the majority of ASEAN member states were ready to conclude an agreement, Malaysia and Indonesia insisted the EU drop its plan to phase out the use of palm oil in biodiesels as stipulated under its Renewable Energy Directive.

The EU purports that its palm oil policy is a global policy. Nearly 90 percent of the world’s palm oil, however, comes from Southeast Asia, mostly from Indonesia and Malaysia. The commodity is one of Indonesia’s most important sources of export revenue, worth US$19 billion annually, and the EU is its second biggest export destination after India. Around half of the EU’s palm oil imports are used for biodiesel.  The EU now claims the palm oil industry is responsible for deforestation, hence it is phasing out its use in biodiesels.

Given the importance of palm oil to the Indonesian and Malaysian economies, they have pushed a combative counter-narrative against the EU’s palm oil policy.

They have accused the EU of protectionism and discrimination, as the phasing out of palm oil will create demand for alternative vegetable oils more readily found in Europe, such as soybean or rapeseed oils.

Concurrently, they have appealed to the EU as a normative power that supposedly acts as a force for good by promoting the narrative that the palm oil industry supports the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

“Refusing to use palm oil is the same as rejecting the SDGs,” Deputy Trade Minister AM Fachir said as reported by The Jakarta Post  . Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah, meanwhile, told Bloomberg that Malaysia was preparing retaliatory measures. Saifuddin confirmed that palm oil was behind the impasse between the EU and ASEAN.

Significantly, upgrading interregional relations is more important for the EU, even if only in name.

The EU is looking to reinforce the importance of regionalism and interregional cooperation, given that Brexit and rising nationalism in EU member-states has dented its self-perception as a model for regional integration.

Upgrading relations would further anchor the EU in a geostrategic and economically important region. US President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Policy, as well as the trade war with China, has prompted the EU to promote the international rules-based system, a view that ASEAN shares.

ASEAN as an intergovernmental organization, however, takes a consensus-based approach. ASEAN member states thus appear to be using negotiations to leverage and amplify the national concerns of palm oil producers. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the issue of palm oil has derailed talks.

Foreign ministers still agree in principle on upgrading relations to a new strategic dialogue partnership but have said in a joint statement that it is “subject to details and timing to be worked out”.

Moving forward, the EU will rely on its recent experience in which threatening to close its market can lead to a change of behavior with external partners. This was evident with Thailand, the world’s third-largest exporter of seafood, which pushed through reforms to tackle illegal fishing after the EU stated that it would ban imports from the country.

Indeed, Indonesia and Malaysia are strengthening their sustainable palm oil certification systems. The Malaysian government has moved to ensure all palm estates are certified as sustainable by the end of this year, with special assistance extended for smallholders. On March 1, Malaysian Primary Industries Minister Teresa Kok said the country would halt the expansion of oil palm plantations to 6 million hectares in response to the negative campaign against palm oil and EU pressure.

Such high-pressure tactics, however, will only increase ASEAN member state’s perception that the EU is belittling toward them.   The EU must communicate its palm oil policy more clearly, as it is evident that there are conflicting accounts of what the policy entails and what measures are required of palm oil producers to alleviate EU pressure.

Moreover, the palm oil issue between the EU and ASEAN member states has largely been played out at the top levels of government. To make further headway, there needs to be greater incorporation of lower levels of government, regulatory bodies, as well as smallholders and large estate representatives to ensure the impasse is dealt with holistically and collaboratively.

Achieving this will ensure that upgrading relations to a new strategic dialogue partnership will be more than just a public relations exercise, and a boost for regionalism and interregional cooperation at a time when it is sorely needed.

 

The writer is an emerging markets analyst and editor. Find him on Twitter @ShahSurajBharat.

Indonesia Refugee Policy is on Right Track

/in /by

Refugees from Afghanistan stage a rally in front of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) office in Medan, North Sumatra, on Monday, Nov. 19, 2018. (JP/Apriadi Gunawan)

 

January 2019 marks two years of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s 2016 presidential decree on handling foreign refugees. The Presidential Decree no. 125/2016 on the Treatment of Refugees from Overseas, signed on Dec. 31, 2016, provides legal certainty and standard procedures on coordination and effective collaboration among the mandated government agencies.

Before this decree, the Directorate General of Immigration under the Law and Human Rights Ministry was the highest authority to exercise policy response towards asylum-seekers and refugees in Indonesia – mainly with security measures. Human rights of refugees were largely neglected, especially as they were considered largely illegal immigrants.

The 2016 decree states special treatment is provided for refugees with special needs such as those who are ill, pregnant, disabled, children and the elderly.

On the right to housing, article 26 of the decree instructs that facilitation of refugee shelters support can be sought from international organizations regarding basic necessities such as clean water, food, clothing, healthcare and hygiene, and religious facilities. The decree does not specify any international organization.

Australia’s decision in March 2018 to cut off its funding, previously channeled through the International Organization for Migration (IOM) that provides incentives for refugees whilst waiting for their resettlement process, has also raised Indonesia’s refugee burden amid uncertain political commitment on refugee issues.

The refugee issue was never a priority agenda in Indonesia’s domestic and foreign policies, with humanitarian emergency being the only exception.

Nevertheless, since the 2016 decree the situation of refugees in Indonesia has improved gradually despite absence of explicit right-based provisions.

On the fundamental right to freedom of movement, for example, Indonesia has been quietly progressing. As of December 2018, only 1 percent of the total refugees in transit in Indonesia remain living at the immigration detention centers, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). This only amounts to around 120 from the total of 14,016 refugee population registered with the UNHCR.

Meanwhile before the decree, there were over 4,200 individuals, including women and children, who were detained at the Indonesian detention centers in 2016. It had given Indonesia a bad reputation on hosting refugees in overcrowded immigration lockups, such as the one at Kalideres, West Jakarta which may amount to torture under international law.

The UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, Nils Melzer, stated in his report that, “grossly inadequate detention conditions can even amount to torture if they are intentionally imposed, encouraged or tolerated by States for reasons based on discrimination of any kind, including based on immigration status, or for the purpose of deterring, intimidating, or punishing migrants or  their  families,  coercing them into withdrawing  their requests  for asylum,  subsidiary  protection  or  other  stay,  agreeing  to  ‘voluntary’  return,  providing information or fingerprints, or with a view to extorting money or sexual acts from them.”

Another milestone achieved over the past two years is access to education for refugee children.

While the right to education is not mentioned in Jokowi’s refugee decree, the IOM noted some Indonesian cities have admitted child refugees to public schools such as in Jakarta, Medan, and Makassar.

Through a memorandum of understanding between the IOM and the Education Agency in Medan, North Sumatra, over 290 child refugees are integrated into the city’s local public school system.

Hasan Basri, the head of the agency expressed concern for the refugees as cited in a press release from IOM, “especially for these school-aged children […] [therefore] my department will give its full support towards ensuring that they are able to pursue their education.”

The children cannot get certificates of graduation as they are not registered in residential family cards. However the UNHCR noted that around 320 child refugees are now enrolled in accredited national schools, from which 2,835 children are in school age.

The remaining homework is making the right to employment available by integrating refugees to the local labor market in their transit period. It is still a long way to go, as authorities face concerns that refugees might steal local jobs. The government should progress to consider allowing ways for refugees to gain income, given stress levels of long-term refugees — which have led to suicides among them. At least now the national and local governments are on the right track towards providing universal access to human rights for refugees.

***

Dio Herdiawan Tobing, S.I.P., LLM. Research fellow at ASEAN Studies Center UGM

The article was published on Jakarta Post

 

 

Quo Vadis: Thailand’s Taking the Chair of ASEAN, Sailing in the Troubled Waters

/in /by

After one year, Singapore has led the Association to progress in ASEAN’s three pillars, the next torch of the Association is now in Thailand’s grip. Faced with relentless fights against new threats of transnational crime, terrorism, trade wars, climate change, the new chairmanship seems to give some hopes to reach out a greater partnership, reaffirming some key agendas of deepening the infrastructure and people-to-people connectivity, maintaining the rules-based order and sustainability.

“Advancing Partnership for Sustainability” has been chosen as Thailand’s new tagline for its chairmanship of ASEAN 2019. It encompasses two points: sustainability and connectivity. Along with this tagline, many observers may ponder upon what will the next chairmanship bring to the region? And how will it pull the ASEAN member states together in the midst of facing other countries’ spur of development assistance? And more importantly, how would it push the agenda to strengthen ASEAN Centrality in any regional initiatives that seem to tear apart?

One greatest challenge facing the new chairman would be on finding the regional alternative to face the geopolitical battle in Indo-Pacific region; one depicted by the divisive characteristics of Pax-Americana and Pax-Sino initiatives on their own geopolitical strategy in the region.

ASEAN does not hold view a common ground on whether they should go take sides on either one of them, nor to just omni balance. The fact that there has yet been any unified approach to face Belt and Road Initiative, or US Pivot to Asia, tells us that the Association is tested for its unity. This, in turn, would be even more interesting to examine, as we also observe that countries like South Korea with its New Southern Policy, India and its Act East Policy and Japan with its long-standing International Cooperation Agency also try their best to get some shares of influences over ASEAN countries.

 

This above-mentioned argument would then also bring our attention to the dilemma of aid over independence. Noting that many of these initiatives by bigger economies usually showcase some features of being (infrastructure) development assistance, the question whether these assistances would be effective -for the receiver, thus, not likely to turn as a weapon against them – is largely determined by the ASEAN country itself. Thailand, could perhaps, encourage its fellow member states to be very careful in taking any risks of accepting aids so that they could benefit from the opportunities provided by the global economy.

 

Being a chairman determines your country’s privilege to set the agenda of the meetings. Perhaps, Thailand could seize the moment by introducing a new aid assessment tool or framework that ASEAN could agree upon, to better evaluate the effectiveness of aid – if they could not have an agreement upon the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (PD) – sheds lights on values of net aid value, donor’s commitment to the Declaration, value for money, time to access aid, etc. –for what always being claimed as having too many indicators. Together, ASEAN could foster its institutional power to make the best of it in using the donor’s assistance while providing transparency and such.

 

In a similar vein, the new Chairmanship would also give up a new opportunity for the Association to explore existing partnerships. Keeping the old ones and trying to dig deeper into the core of the cooperation sounds delicate rather than having to reach out to new partners. Perhaps, Thailand could also lead the Association to work with South Korea in narrowing the development gap between Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam under ROK’s New Southern Policy. This could be made possible by requesting South Korea to help spillover its digital transformation into Southeast Asia, in two strategic possible cooperation areas of technology and creative industry.

 

Korea, as a middle power, looks as if it poses no threats to the region – moreover when compared with great players such as China and the US. With its miraculous economic transformation in the last 50 years, internet penetration rate and broadband speeds, as well as its leading technology companies Samsung, LG and Hyundai, such cooperation are possible. These show that South Korea has leverage on spreading its influence through its soft power approach- military power-centric afar. Looking at this trend, ASEAN needs more investor in developing its Research and Development in Industry 4.0 Sectors, transfer of idea and technology, as well as bridging its skills and capacities gap in digital technology. In addition, in the field of creative industry, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines are emerging inexorably. With emerging powerhouses in Southeast Asia and greater public-private partnerships, the way to achieve a rapid digital economic growth in ASEAN would come handy.

 

Amidst the geopolitical battle in the region between China and the US, Thailand, which has long been known for its unique foreign policy principle and a dedicated member to focus on ASEAN, comes as a promising actor to leverage the regional association’s position vis-à-vis great powers. Thai’s “Bamboo Bending with the Wind” foreign policy principle tells us about the policies that are rooted solidly in their own, but flexible enough to bend with the wind to survive. Together, the member states can swirl in the wind while balancing the US and China, through ASEAN-led foreign policy focus. Perhaps, it could also then facilitated by considering again the intra-regional initiative of having its “ASEAN-style Indo-Pacific Vision’ hoped to accommodate all interests regardless of some small frictions between countries.

 

With the laid foundations and ongoing projects under Singapore’s chairmanship that tend to shed lights on issues such as cybersecurity and digitalization, as well as maintaining the rules-based order in the region, Thailand should also continue the legacy of its predecessor. In this, we hope to keep the existing initiatives and make some improvements on ASEAN’s resilience and innovation, as we are living on the era of disruption whose challenges are inevitable but could be learned and mitigated. And this would continue to put the test on every member state of ASEAN, with no exceptions to Thailand.

 

Written by Kevin Iskandar Putra, research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

The Challenges of Indonesia’s Palm Oil Industry: An Overview

/in /by

The global debate on the sustainability and legitimacy of palm oil production is one that continues to evolve and define the industry. As Indonesia and Malaysia are the two major palm oil producing nations, there is much discussion around the issues that palm oil plantations pose in the face of environmental sustainability, the local economy, and human rights. The Indonesian debate on palm oil is an international issue that continues to affect local, national and international frameworks through negative consequences to the flora and fauna and land disputes, while also providing benefits for local economies and the development of rural Indonesia.

Palm oil is a global commodity that is extracted from the oil palm tree, Elaeis guineensis. These plantations can be found throughout Southeast Asia, however largely concentrated in Indonesia’s Kalimantan and Sumatra. The oil palm is an attractive source of livelihood for farmers, due to the high yielding compared to soy and canola.

In 2010, Indonesia’s land-use for oil palm plantations was at 8.4 million hectares, this is juxtaposed with the 18 million hectares that the Indonesian Government has deemed suitable for plantations for current or future stakeholders in the industry. Through this booming industry, Indonesia has accumulated international attention through their rapidly increasing economy, and the mass deforestation of native rainforests as a result. Together, Indonesia and Malaysia provide 80.5% of the world’s palm oil. This is a major market for the two nation-states, with Indonesia alone producing 32.5 million tons of palm oil in 2014, with 80% exported to global consumer. The global community plays a major role in consumer products, as approximately half of the packaged supermarket products contain palm oil, with the industry expected to grow rapidly. Indonesia hopes to increase its production and exportation of the palm oil to 40 million tonnes annually by 2020.

Today, Indonesia is one of the largest palm oil producer in the world, with a rapidly increasing economic and trading market. The production of Palm oil and exportation contributes heavily towards to nation’s Gross National Product (GNP), thus provides  an obligation and responsibility for the nation, and stakeholders, to continue to provide this commodity for the global community to import and consume, in addition for the state to balance their national economy. However, in 2015 San Afri Awang, Indonesia’s Environment and Forestry Minister, stressed that the government’s “authority is being taken over by the private sector”, demonstrating the heavy influence and power these big corporations have over the governmental policy and economy, through lobbying and networks.

The environmental impacts of mass palm oil plantations are extensive within Indonesia. Deforestation is the major issue that continues to negatively impact the industry. Between 2008 and 2008, 3.1 million hectares of rainforests were lost due to new oil palm plantation, with approximately half a million hectares lost every subsequent year. In addition, the imbalances in the environment are found in the forms of disturbances in the soil, the loss of carbon from biomass, as well as the accumulation of organic matter due to peat swamps for oil palm establishment. The use of agrochemicals such as fertilizers, rodenticides, and pesticides also threaten the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the region. Humans also become the subjects and experience the environmental damage of wildfires, as many have to suffer from respiratory, cardiovascular disease and death. Furthermore, 20% of wildfires across Indonesia are attributed directly to palm oil plantation practices between 1989-2008.

The majority of Indonesia’s rainforests grow on carbon-rich peatland, which causes major environmental and economic risks. The palm oil plantations create two issues when dealing with carbon mitigation, first is the emissions from deforestation, and second is the emissions created from the production of palm oil.  Through these two processes, carbon is released from the soil, and methane is released from the mill effluent. These elements are major influences in Indonesia’s rainforest loss and contribute heavily to its national pollution and emissions.

Major palm oil companies in Indonesia often resort to illegally expanding their plantations to neighboring forests, which in many cases results to deforestation of rainforests. This creates an unbalanced ecosystem through the disruption of biodiversity and food chains. Two critically endangered species, Orangutans and Sumatran tigers, which are only found in the region, are facing extinction, along with much other native flora and fauna. Orangutans are decreasing at alarming rates, there are approximately 50,000 orangutans left in the wild, compared to approximately 315,000 in 1990. Although the palm oil industry is not wholly responsible, they largely contribute to the destruction of their habitat, which is the leading cause of extinction.

Challenges are also created through local conflicts between local community and palm oil companies. In 2015 alone saw 776 conflicts between palm oil companies and local indigenous communities. Abram et al. (2017) state that these problems arise due to “boundary disputes, illegal operations by companies, perceived lack of consultation, compensation and broken promises by companies”. In addition, many small local or indigenous communities have not had the privilege of obtaining legal documents that certify ownership of land, thus creates major issues in proving land ownership. Many communities suffer livelihood damages and access to community resources, once they are in conflict with large palm oil companies. As a source of income, local members often are left with no options but working for the companies, and many experience inadequate labor standards and abuse.

The mushrooming local to national corruption in the sector of palm oil is an increasing concern for many national and international bodies. The lack of law enforcement and land allocation creates a messy and ambiguous working environment on a local level. Local government in regencies across the country are the most susceptible to bribery and corruption, due to the lobbying, or personal interests in the sector. In 2012, 13 regents were under investigation for providing illegal allocation and permits, while a third of all regents in Indonesia are under investigation for corruption. This led to the imprisonment of two governors for illegally providing permits to palm oil investors or companies in 2012 alone. In addition, some local governments have invested interests in the palm oil sector, and according to the EIA International, crimes in the palm oil industries happen largely due to the issuance of the Plantation Business Permit (IUP) prior to approval of Environmental Permit, or the Forest Clearance prior to Timber Utilisation Permit (IPK). Therefore, a major aspect of corruption occurs through the allowance of companies to skip or bypass certain laws which are in place to ensure the legality, sustainability, and validity of the plantation.

Despite the issues and challenges that the palm oil industry faces, one could also argue that it is indeed very difficult to find the alternative to this commodity. For Indonesia, the industry itself creates 17 million jobs for communities and smallholder farmers. Approximately, 4 million people in Indonesia are dependent on this industry to sustain their livelihoods and community. (These local economic benefits for communities have provided mechanisms to reduce poverty and increase social development through a rural economy and job opportunities. In addition, it provides major advantages in Indonesia’s national economy and exports, as in 2016 alone, Indonesia generates 13.9 billion USD for its exports on palm oil, with the biggest export destinations of India, China, and Pakistan.

Juxtaposed with this, is the 31 million tons of palm oil that were exported in 2017, bringing about 75 percent of Indonesia’s total output and 22.9 billion USD foreign exchange revenue. Overall, these are significant benefits for cultivating and producing sustainable palm oil. These benefits can be seen in a local community level, to a national economic level.

To better portray the issue on hand, two frameworks surrounding palm oil production in Indonesia, namely the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and Moratorium on the Issuance of New Permits for Palm Oil Plantations would be examined. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) comes as an international effort to establish and implement global standards with the focus to advance the production, procurement, finance and use of sustainable palm oil products. Actors involved in the RSPO include oil palm growers, retailers, banks and investors, environmental or nature conservation NGOs, social or development NGOs, as well as palm oil consumers. Indonesia’s certified area per 30 June 2018 holds 1,555,847 hectares share, including the smallholders certified under group certification. Noted in 2018, Indonesia holds the highest number of complaint submissions, whose number accounts up to 69% of the total case since 2009. In many countries in the Asian region, RSPO faces challenges as many stakeholders and consumers are reluctant to pay more on sustainable products (https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/impact-reports). If the trend continues, the RSPO would lose its significance in the global community, which would create negative effects in advocating against the clearance of primary forest, fires, disputed land ownership.

Nevertheless, the RSPO creates important pathways to combat this growing industry, such as through its newly adopted consensus-driven P&C 2018 scheme where deforestation is not encouraged, along with the implementation of the High Carbon Stock Approach. The RSPO’s role in creating a space for stakeholders to come together to implement strategies for sustainable palm oil production has created significant changes within the industry and continues to do so, however, there are still major challenges that they face in creating a fully sustainable industry.

The moratorium on the issuance of new permits for palm oil plantations instructed by President Joko Widodo in September 2018 to his ministers and regional administrations, is arguably deemed as a significant mechanism to mitigate the environmental and social consequences of the sector. Besides its objective to boost the productivity of palm oil plantations, this moratorium also aims to reduce conflict between smallholders and corporations inside natural forests. Nevertheless, Indonesia is still being scrutinized as to whether it could make some betterments to the law enforcement and practices on the palm oil industry. The complexity of the issue in Indonesia seems to be put together with the discussion of its Palm Oil Bill in the Parliament. This Bill, which is seen as part of the National Legislation Program in 2016 and 2017 by the House of Representative of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) seems to align only with the interests of the investors. If this Bill is passed, the battle of finding the best solutions to unsustainable palm oil production may become increasingly difficult.

The multidimensional aspects of solving sustainable practices within the palm oil industry indicate that there is a need to exert greater eagerness in discussing upon the matter with multiple respective actors. In order to bring about new impetus on resolving the issue, all stakeholders need to collaborate hand-in-hand in making dialogues as accommodative and constructive as possible. The Government’s role as a determining factor on the mitigation and production becomes more important than ever. Thus, they need to prompt themselves to always consider their responsibility towards their people in every action. Perhaps, by investing more on the Research and Development on finding the substitute of palm oil, collaborating with epistemic communities and partners in the advanced countries for its environmentalist agenda would be leverage in enhancing the sustainability aspect of the palm oil business.

To further argue, the efforts to nurture the environment would also be accentuated by raising the awareness and implementing a better coping mechanism of introducing smart plantation. The role of Civil Society Actors should also be encouraged, by giving them more opportunities to grow their resistance power against the palm oil industry.

There are major challenges and issues concerning the implementation, processes, and characteristics of the palm oil industry in Indonesia. The global push for change within the sector is a major driving force behind the move to a more sustainable industry. The palm oil industry continues to rapidly change and grow with the attention and support of the global community, affecting societies on a local, national and international level.

Written by Kevin Iskandar Putra & Mia Dunphy. Kevin is a research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

ASEAN on Disaster Management: Earthquake and Tsunami in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

/in /by

7,7 SR Earthquake and 1.5-meter-high tsunami hit Central Sulawesi, Indonesia on September 28th, 2018. The natural disaster caused various physical destructions, and fatalities; the death toll reached 1,948, and thousands may still be buried under the debris, not yet found. In response to the unfortunate disaster, The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) has coordinated with relevant agencies and stakeholders to organize search and rescue teams as well as humanitarian support to Indonesia. This, of course, relieves some of the burdens Indonesia now carries.

ASEAN’s strong commitment to reduce disaster losses in the region and to jointly respond to disaster emergencies is manifested through The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER). The agreement was signed in Vientiane, Lao in July 2005, it outlines the directions that may be taken into consideration by ASEAN in the following years.

The agreement classifies the key strategies to implement the AADMER to become more people-centered, people-oriented, financially sustainable, and network approachable by 2025. Most importantly, the focus is to further strengthen the role of the ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Center) as the main coordinating body for disaster management, and to realize the vision of ‘One ASEAN Response’.

Established by the 10 ASEAN Member States, AHA Centre is an inter-governmental organization, which aims to assist cooperation and management among the ASEAN Member States and with the United Nations and international organizations for disaster management and emergency response within ASEAN region. AHA Center frequently reports its progress and activities to the ASEAN Committee on Disaster Management (ACDM). The ACDM members consist of leaders of National Disaster Management Offices (NDMOs) of the 10 ASEAN Member States who operate as the Governing Board of the AHA Centre. The following statements are the core values that AHA Centre has:

  • Always maintain the trust and confidence of the ASEAN Member States
  • Open working environment where everyone is part of a first class professional team that is stronger together and helping one other
  • An efficient and non-bureaucratic organization that constantly delivers results and gets things done
  • Zero tolerance towards corruption with high accountability and financial integrity
  • Passion for excellence in everything we do through continuous improvement and innovation to make ASEAN great in disaster management.

Furthermore, there are 3 main mandates carried out by the AHA Center: disaster monitoring and analysis; preparedness and response; and capacity building. In addition, one of the main strategies of the AHA Center is concrete action in every disaster monitoring and analysis Through these activities, the AHA Centre targets to decrease the loss of life and impairment to property from natural disasters by identifying hazards and risks before impact and by increasing warning times.

The AHA Center operates closely with the National Disaster Management Organization (NDMOs) of all ten ASEAN Member Countries in monitoring and distributing information about disasters in the region. As regards to preparedness and response, AHA Centre advances several tools and regulation to hasten the mobilization of resources between the ASEAN Member States and its partners in times of catastrophes – one of the available resources includes standard operating procedures.

Concerning the third operation, capacity-building aims to build a disaster-resilient region. It has two courses, which are ASEAN-Emergency Response and Assessment Team (ASEAN-ERAT) and the AHA Center Executive Programme (ACE). The ASEAN-ERAT is a response team to support the affected ASEAN Member States during disasters.  Every time a disaster occurs in the Southeast Asia region, ASEAN-ERAT members are ready to be deployed within eight hours after an emergency warning is activated or based on the request of the affected country. As for the ACE Program, it is intended to train future leaders of disaster management in ASEAN. The ACE program by far is the most concentrated disaster management training program in the region.

For disasters that occurred in Central Sulawesi, most ASEAN member countries provided assistance, aid, and relief to Indonesia through AHA Centre. The Malaysian government has contributed RM1 million and set up the Sulawesi Earthquake/Tsunami Disaster Fund (TBGBTS) on October 4, 2018, to help the victims of the disaster.

Singapore Government has also offered to send humanitarian provisions and workforces to help with ongoing relief; two Republic of Singapore Air Force C-130 aircraft are set to deliver humanitarian supplies and equipment, including tents, meal rations, and medical supplies. The aircraft then will continue to help Indonesia with disaster relief works including the evacuation of citizens from the areas affected.

Meanwhile, the Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) has employed two officers to participate in a 10-day mission to central Sulawesi as part of the ASEAN Emergency Response and Assessment Team; this is under the coordination of the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management.

The Vietnamese Government decided to offer US$100,000 in aid relief. Prime Minister of Thailand, presented a contribution of 5 million baht (approximately US$155,000) to H.E. Mr. Ahmad Rusdi, Ambassador of Indonesia to Thailand. While Lao PDR donated 200,000 USD and Brunei Darussalam deployed members to explore types of assistance needed. The Philippines donated 300,000 USD and sent relief items, and Cambodia gave 200,000 USD.

As a manifestation of the ‘One ASEAN One Response,’ the AHA Center is expected to always be alert and prepared to assist countries affected by the disaster. Since the ASEAN member countries are vulnerable to natural disaster, the AHA Center has a very imperative role in ASEAN. AHA Center should also do more research about the possibility of future disasters and how to effectively manage them – since nature has always been a mystery when it comes to disastrous events. It is important that the AHA Center should always be prepared for whatever is to come.

Written by Raissa Almira, a research intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Modern Slavery: A Fight, Not Yet Won

/in /by

Photo by Lisa Kristine (https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2110986/modern-slavery-and-american-photographer-who)

The term slavery may sound a little bit old, but in fact, slavery still exists in this era with a new term: modern slavery. The term modern slavery is an umbrella concept, capturing various form of exploitation that affects the vulnerable workers worldwide. According to World Slavery Index, modern slavery can be defined as the condition in which a person treats others as their property, so that the person’s (slave) freedom is seized and exploited for the benefit of the person who practices slavery; people can be hired and thrown away like goods.

Today, migrant workers have become an important factor Southeast Asia’s economy as countries increasingly relies on the availability of cheap labor. This condition has made an ideal environment for the practice of human trafficking in the region, which currently affects many industries such as fisheries, agriculture, construction and domestic work. Some major cases of modern slavery occurred in Thailand and Indonesia.

 

Thailand

An investigation by the Guardian back in 2014 exposed severe cases of modern slavery on Thai fishing boats. The seafood business goes into the supply sold by supermarkets in the US, UK and Europe. In 2015, the European Union enacted a “yellow card” on Thailand under its illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing framework, threatening to ban Thai fisheries imports if the government flopped to clean up its fishing industry, especially labor rights violations. The Thai government responded the threat with broad programs of reforms including new laws to regulate and improve working conditions for migrant fishermen.

 

However, unfortunately, it remains capitalized with human rights abuses. Report shows that migrant fishermen from all over ASEAN continue to be trafficked on to fishing boats, received physical abuse, experienced lack of food and are often unpaid for their work or paid less than the minimum wage.

 

Legal strengthening is one solution to counter the practices of modern slavery. In addition, resistance can be taken through ensuring that seafood vendors are responsible for ensuring the supply chain is free from rights abuse. Buyers and retailers have to comprehensively play their part to be smart customers and eventually break the chain; the lesser the demand, the lesser the supply. Supermarkets, buyers and retailers sourcing seafood from Thailand, have yet to bring transparency and accountability to their supply chains.

 

Indonesia

According to data from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and BNP2TKI, about 5 million Indonesian working abroad as migrant domestic workers, where the majority of them are women. The lack of employment in Indonesia has contributed as the driving factor on why many Indonesian choose to work abroad. In addition, the big amount of salary earned abroad rather than in Indonesia is also the reason for supporting this decision. This situation has then encouraged a number of Indonesians to become migrants, which later supported the occurrence of modern slavery practices.

 

One of the reasons why modern slavery is so high in migrant workers is the lack of safety assurance and standard work experience procedures that should be provided to them. This absence can ultimately expose Indonesian migrant workers to exploitation, both for working hours and salaries. In addition, this absence also paves way for sexual harassment and abuse toward female workers.

 

The presence of law that regulates the protection of migrant workers is vital to ensure the safety of migrant workers in the future. However, even though the law exists, it has not been implemented optimally. The recent case of torture of Indonesian migrant workers from NTT, Adelia Faso, is an evidence of weak legal functions regarding the protection of migrant workers in Indonesia and Malaysia.

 

In addition, this incident also illustrates the weakness of PJTKI in providing comprehensive pre-departure training to prospective migrant workers. For example, migrant workers who will go to Arabia only get limited knowledge about their work, not about the rights as workers, and aspects of the culture and character of the destination country. Whereas, the lack of understanding regarding the rights and obligations as workers may lead to poor performances and, often, the violation of rights and the occurrence of torture against them.

 

One of the ways to protect these “foreign exchange héroes” (pahlawan devisa) is to closely monitor and supervise the supply process of migrant workers on a regular basis. The government should ensure that prior to deployment, the migrant workers have to pass the proper training that includes  all-around work and cultural education of recipient country, which is held by sending agencies. This precautionary measure also includes rigorous screening that will hold workers without complete and legal documents to go abroad.

 

This initial prevention effort also includes maximizing the role of relevant sending agents, where the government ensures that these agents have notified migrant workers of their rights and obligations. Therefore, pre-departure, government and relevant sending agents could  ensure the mental and physical conditions of prospective workers must be 100% ready before departure.

 

Conclusion

The efforts to counter modern slavery practices in ASEAN is illustrated in The ASEAN Convention against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (ACTIP). The Convention serves as a legal document that integrates the overall regulation for ASEAN’s efforts in opposing modern slavery, especially human trafficking  have yet to obliterate modern slavery as a whole.  Adopted at the 27th ASEAN Summit in November 2015, the Convention is considered as an imperative commitment for ASEAN to deliver more effective counter-trafficking efforts. The Convention supports the UN Protocol to Suppress, Prevent and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (UN TIP Protocol, 2000) and implemented its definition on trafficking – it  became apparent that modern slavery is a fight not yet won. The roots of modern slavery can be traced to the limited knowledge and awareness of workers. Because those who are most vulnerable to the practice of human trafficking are people in rural areas in ASEAN. Indeed, more needs to be done to solve this problem; commitment has to be strengthen, and this issue needs to be socialized to the public more.

 

Raissa Almira is an intern at the ASEAN Studies Center, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Panmunjom Agreement: The Role of ASEAN behind the Pacified Peninsula

/in /by

Rafyoga Irsadanar

A new stage of peacemaking had progressed in the Korean Peninsula as Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in declared that there will be no more war in the region. This great momentum of peace among the President of Republic of Korea and Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea happened during 2018 Inter-Korean Summit in “Peace House” at Panmunjom on April 27th. Under the “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula”, both parties agreed to denuclearize Korean Peninsula and to conduct more talk with the United States in officially bringing Korean War to a permanent end.

A great advancement of perpetual harmony between North and South Korea, indeed, involved many external parties in pacifying the tension. Even though the security issues in the Korean Peninsula mainly spotlighted the credit to East Asian countries (Japan, China and two Koreas) and the United States, the contribution of ASEAN as the neighboring regional power could not be easily overlooked.

ASEAN- Two Koreas Warm Relationship: A Strong Bargain

It is undeniable that ASEAN itself is still struggling in building its firm institutional power in managing their own region, therefore, at some point, one may doubt ASEAN role in putting North and South Korea back into a constructive negotiation.  However, what matters in the negotiation is ASEAN strategic position in convincing both parties to express their cooperative endeavor. It is important to note that ASEAN has a strong political capital to begin with.

By default, ASEAN and the Koreans have a strong bond in various aspects. North Korea, despite its isolative tenet, surprisingly has progressive political and economic relations with ASEAN. Not only North Korea has diplomatic relations with all ASEAN member states, North Korea also actively participated in ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to foster the security stability in Asia-Pacific. Economically, from 2000 to 2006 North Korea’s trade with Southeast Asian nations was able to reach 12 percent of the country whole balance. Simultaneously, South Korea and ASEAN obviously have a firm both political and economic cooperation as well. Besides the fact that South Korea and ASEAN regularly held ministerial and bilateral summits, ASEAN is Korea’s second largest trading partner under the ASEAN-Korea Free Trade Agreement (AKFTA).  These warm ties of ASEAN and the conflicting parties are the main ASEAN decisive bargain in persuading the two Koreas to peace.

ASEAN Regional Forum

The prominent relationship of ASEAN and two Koreas has escalated the urgency of ASEAN involvement as South Korea recognized ASEAN as the “fifth power”. The robust economic ties between ASEAN and North Korea also caused Trump Administration demanding ASEAN to cut the trade and financial aids to pressure North Korea, proving ASEAN importance to North Korea. However, in engaging to the issue, ASEAN took a softer approach which is making the best of the existing platform, ASEAN Regional Forum, to be a constructive peaceful talk among conflicting parties in regards to North Korea assertive actions. There are two interconnected reasons why this is exclusive as ASEAN role in pacifying the Peninsula tension:

First, ASEAN Regional Forum is the only multilateral platform where both South and North Korea are encountered to each other in regards to security issues after the failure of Six-Party Talks. This means, ASEAN is the only actor who could bridge the states in Asia-Pacific with North Korea in regards to denuclearization through an official interstate channel. As the aftermath of ARF 2017 Manila, this ASEAN-initiated forum could gather the interest of all its member state to positively and legitimately demand North Korea, as ARF member, to reconsider its nuclear projects since it threatened Asia-Pacific stability. In addition, ARF initial trajectory in welcoming North Korea membership in 2000 was to engage with North Korea softer approach instead of isolating them, as it also appear as the turning point of Inter-Korean Relations at that time,  ASEAN Chairman on that period Surin Pitsuwan stated. Hence, ASEAN contribution in providing the peace talk circuit should be credited to this context.

Second, not only ASEAN could provide the progressive platform, but also has a great potential to sustain it subsequently as a mediating actor. This optimism arises as ASEAN could appear as a friendlier partner toward North Korea. For North Korea, ASEAN is the easier counterpart to talk to compared to the United States, South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia.

North Korea trust toward ASEAN could be seen as ASEAN (and a couple of South Asian countries) is the only regional arena where North Korea engaging the most, proven by the number of its envoys sent to ASEAN (added with India and Bangladesh). North Korea admitted that this high level of interaction with ASEAN was caused by its “traditional friendship” established among them. This “traditional friendship” between North Korea and ASEAN was nurtured as North Korea could find its socialist-communist counterparts in ASEAN such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Not to mention its strong connection with Indonesia socialist-friendly regime under President Soekarno also appeared as the additional value of the relationship. Therefore, no wonder that ASEAN is currently seen as a potential actor to maintain the conductivity of the peacemaking as ASEAN is recognized as the one who could communicate with North Korea best.

From these metrics, we can see that trust is the main spearhead that made ASEAN-Koreans friendship possible to sustain. To maintain the maneuvers progressive, this article suggests that ASEAN should maintain its neutrality and strengthen its non-intervention tenet. These two parameters are vital to gain the trust of all parties since it will shape ASEAN as a truthful ally to cooperate with. Also, the non-intervention principle may also show South and North Korea that ASEAN is open to all values, proven by its commitment to not pushing any of its member state against their own identity.

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

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

/in /by

Photo by asean.org

Chitito Audithio Syafitri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARISE Plus

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

EU – ASEAN FTA

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

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

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

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