Yogyakarta, Friday, October 12, 2018

ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held its very first collaborated Bincang ASEAN featuring the Department of International Relations, Universitas Islam Indonesia. In order to better raise awareness and promote greater ownership of the ASEAN Community among young generation throughout the region, as well as to introduce more closely how the decision-making process at the ASEAN level is carried out, this time Bincang ASEAN inviting Kevin Iskandar (Best Position Paper and Diplomacy Award of AFMAM 2018) and Tri Inov Haripa (Best Delegation of AFMAM 2018) to share their experiences on Model ASEAN Meeting.

The event began with Tri Inov Haripa briefly introducing the ASEAN Model Meeting. She portrayed the Model ASEAN Meeting as an academic simulation from the Model ASEAN Meeting, where participants are invited to play the role of diplomat representing 10 ASEAN member countries in solving urgent regional issues by using perspectives and policies of the assigned countries that are in line with the principles ASEAN. As she emphasizes, the key objective of the Model ASEAN Meeting is for participants to gain an understanding, insight, and appreciation of the decision-making process of ASEAN. The final outcome of the meeting is to have the Heads of Government (HOGs) adopt a concerted document that addresses the issues identified, also known as the Chairman Statement, based on the ASEAN Way. There are 6 steps in the Model ASEAN Meeting Process, which are Opening Ceremony (Remarks by HoG), Simulation of Sectoral Bodies Meeting (SOM), Simulation of ASEAN Ministerial Meetings, Community Council Meeting, Coordinating Council Meeting, and ASEAN Summit (Closing Ceremony & Remarks by HoG).

The next session was continued by Kevin Iskandar, presenting the stages and roles in the ASEAN Meeting Model. First off, ASEAN Secretariat is responsible to prepare the Draft Statement, assist the document formulation during the Negotiation and draft the final report with the assistance of the ASEAN National Secretariat. Second, Senior Officials are responsible to lay out the foundation of discussion and amend the draft statement. Third, the Ministers are responsible to negotiate the unresolved (escalated) points of Draft Statements and propose a substantial point. Lastly, the Head of Government is responsible to coordinate councils and the ASEAN Summit.

Closing the session of Bincang ASEAN, Kevin and Tri outlined more details about the strategy paper & position paper. Position paper lays down the background of the topic, country’s position and proposed solutions, does a deliberate research on the past country’s efforts and regional efforts beforehand and formulated by every delegate with the exception of the HoG and Foreign Minister. As for the strategy paper, it comprises of what one’s country has done in the past in its efforts realizing the vision/mission of each pillar, includes the area of cooperation that your country would be (and would not be) willing to negotiate and covers strategy to approach the issue on the table. All in all, Model ASEAN Meeting is a very good platform for youth to learn more about ASEAN, especially in solving pressing regional issues using the policies and perspectives of their assigned country using the ASEAN Way.

Written by Raissa Almira, research intern in ASEAN Studies Center UGM

[ASC EVENT] Bincang ASEAN

With more than 13,000 asylum-seekers and refugees currently hosted in Indonesia, the country is regarded as one of the main refugee transit countries in Southeast Asia after Thailand and Malaysia. However, in light of the situation, Indonesia is a non-party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its additional protocol. The Foreign Ministry of Indonesia and other government-affiliated institutions frequently describe that Indonesia’s stance to refugees-like issue is solid: no ratification, no refugee obligation. Is this even entirely true?
Speaking from an international perspective, Dio’s LL.M Dissertation maps out Indonesia’s refugee obligation from various international legal instruments: Convention Against Torture, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Convention on the Rights of the Child. The findings of his dissertation presents that in spite of Indonesia’s non-ratification to the Refugee Conventions, the country remains to have refugee obligation derived from other legal instruments. In fact, the threshold of Indonesia’s non-refoulement obligation is higher.
ASEAN Studies Center UGM presents:
Mapping the Source of Indonesia’s Refugee Obligations: Does It Exists?
With the expert, Dio Herdiawan Tobing, S.IP, LL.M, this edition of Bincang ASEAN will discuss about Indonesia’s existing non-refoulement refugee obligation, the reflection of such obligation in the newly adopted Refugee Decree No. 125/2016 and its flaws, and the incoherence of the existing international non-refoulement obligation in Indonesian practices.

Don’t miss it!
Friday, September 7th, 2018.
15.00 – 17.00 WIB.
In FISIPOL UGM BA 201.

Online registration at http://tiny.cc/BINCANGASEAN2

Pictures source: http://specialeffectscentral.weebly.com/uploads/6/9/7/4/69743383/barbwire001.png https://d25in8q9uizcdd.cloudfront.net/app/uploads/2017/11/crisi-rohingya-birmania.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/3/3b/20091216111142%21Jakarta-Panorama.jpg

#ASC_event

Bincang ASEAN Monday, 14 May 2018

Yogyakarta – Recently, the ASEAN Studies Center UGM held its first Bincang ASEAN in 2018 entitled “The Democratization in Southeast Asia: The Case of Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand” at Digilib Café FISIPOL, UGM. This particular Bincang ASEAN featured Hestutomo Restu Kuncoro, M.A. (Alumni of Manchester University) with Ezka Amalia (Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center UGM) moderating.

 

On this occasion, Hesutomo raised the topic of democratization in Southeast Asia, using comparative methods of Western democratic model and models adopted in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand. As the discussion progressed interactively, Hestutomo explained that Southeast Asia did not support the strong Western democratization model in Latin America and Eastern Europe because of differences in the type of regime. As a consequence, Huntington’s ‘universal’ model of democratization is not applicable to Southeast Asia as it could not portray a complete explanation of the process taking shape in the region.

 

Putting the context on Southeast Asia, a region that is relatively immature for its democracy, Hestutomo argued that Thailand and the Philippines subscribe to the opposition-initiated democratization theory, whereas Indonesia adopted the regime-opposition alliance theory. These two types of theory are self-explanatory in nature; both are named after the drive for democratization. The former is characterized with non-violence movements and revolts, to begin with, and started without a power overturn. These people who demanded democracy fought against the same enemy, not because of a shared vision. On the contrary, the latter emphasizes on the function of regime opposition that seeks for change. True oppositions in Indonesia, in this regards, is difficult to define.

 

To further argue, Hestutomo contended that the power of people or civil society is not evidently strong to drive the democratization in Southeast Asia. In Britain, the free flow of ideas during the democratization process was associated with the existence of a strong civil society, something that Southeast Asia did not share in common. The interdependency between business sectors and politics are deemed as the catalyst for democratization. For instance, the unintended consequence of elitist competition in Indonesia gave birth to a greater democracy after the New Order era. In the Philippines, the constituents and those who are loyal to Aquino could not give much to say in the political agenda unless Aquino gave an approval in their action. People in Thailand, however, sought to get the patronage of the country.

 

As to the goals of democratization in Southeast Asia happened primarily due to the expected outcomes of the people within the jurisdiction of the respective state, such as to provide a better opportunity to be heard and to provide a better security from the state. Such conditions depict Indonesia during the fall of well-known corrupt Soeharto’s regime that curbed the voice of the people. In comparison to Portugal and Spain whose, people strove to seek democracy to participate in deciding the budget allocation of the country, the case in Latin America showed a transitional situation from a very closed government into one with the inclusion of the people in economy and decision-making process.

 

The role of the military in government, as Hestutomo explained, dominates in the Philippines and Indonesia. As time passes, they begin to enter the political business network to gain access to national resources. A question remains, why is this clear, the power of the people in the Philippines still unable to remove the authoritarian government that unilaterally supports Marshall’s Law and the War on Drugs in the country despite their views against such practices. Borrowing the physical molecular theory that explains a state of condition with sufficient critical mass and people power and a collective action necessary to transform a particular state or condition to another, democracy is possible to make. However, in fact, is still nowhere near to happen partly because the people in the Philippines still cast their votes to the characteristics of the figure they can relate to.

 

All in all, democratization in Southeast Asia is an unfinished project due to a plethora of variables. The intertwining role of religion and democracy make us questioning the maturity of the democracy in the region. For instance, the democratic practice in Southeast Asia tends to follow a procedural matter of democracy which highly focuses on the national election. The lack of tolerance to differing views in politics has the tendency to be divisive and harmful for the maturity of our democracy. The question that arises is what kind of democracy do young people imagine as the future of Southeast Asia? and how will our civil society be more open to embracing differences? When he concludes, such a scenario will eventually arise when people adhere to the values of democracy and inculcate it in our lives.

 

(Written by Kevin Iskandar, research intern in ASEAN Studies Center UGM)

The third day of UGM-RUG International Working Conference on Regional and National Approaches toward Sustainable Development Goals in Southeast Asia held on October 5th 2017. With only three session of draft paper presentation left, the international working conference was opened by Dr. Titus C. Chen’s presentation on his draft paper. The title of his work is blue-washing, green coffe, and the sustainable development agenda in Southeast Asia.

The second draft paper presentation was presented by Dr. Helena Varkkey, an expert on the transboundary haze issues in Southeast Asia. Her works, Transboundary Haze, ASEAN and the SDGs: Normative and Structural Considerations.

Prof. Laksono Trisnantoro from Indonesia became the last but not the least draft paper presenter at the UGM-RUG working conference. He presented his draft paper with the title Health Care System Reform and Governance for Sustainalbe Development in Indonesia. The UGM-RUG international working conference finally closed after every participant presented their draft paper.