The Shift in Japan’s Economic Strategy with ASEAN: Why Domestic Matters

/0 Comments/in /by

The year is 1974. Sakura season hasn’t come yet. Only the cold breeze from the north covers Japan with snow. At that time, Japan’s PM, Tanaka Kakuei, flew to a warmer place, Indonesia. There, Suharto and his cabinet welcomed the entourage.  This visit commemorates a strong diplomatic tie between the two countries. Yet, outside the airport terminal, a massive demonstration breaks. The next day, the situation worsened. Protesters highlight the massive Japanese modal inflow to Indonesia. Japanese investors are accused of dominating the Indonesian industry. Hurting the traditional and domestic industry. Parallels with their demands to the Indonesian government regarding the economy and the rule of law. What started as a peaceful demonstration later turned into a riot. Looting and vandalism, especially towards Chinese-owned stores and Japanese products, turned Jakarta into chaos. This event was later known as the MALARI incident.

The MALARI incident wasn’t the first anti-Japanese sentiment in ASEAN countries. For instance, in November 1972, the National Student Centre of Thailand (NSCT) orchestrated a public campaign to boycott Japanese products in Thailand. Japanese products were being targeted due to public opinion towards Japan’s unfair economic relations, where Japan held a significant trade surplus with Thailand. But that’s not the whole picture. Throughout the 70s, Thai scholars raised criticism towards Japan’s economic expansion. Fearing Japan’s new form of imperialism, an economic one. And this anxiety comes from memories of the past.

Towards the Pacific War, Japan had a strong militaristic presence in the region. This held a significant role in order to fulfil Japan’s objective at that time. That is, pursuing dominance in Asia-Pacific. However, after their defeat, Japan changed its course towards economic expansion. This shift is in line with Japan’s new priority, post-war development. However, Japan’s national interest in creating economic dominance reminds the ASEAN people of the grim memories from Japan’s military operation in Southeast Asia. What was once a militaristic imperialism, now turned into economic imperialism. According to Thipakorn (2014), what happened in 1972 Thailand, the Thai people’s resentment towards Japan’s investment is linked to the notion of Japan’s economic imperialism.

 

Why Domestic Matters?

Japan’s aggressive economic expansion isn’t the sole reason behind public backlash. In reality, the anti-Japanese movement was also driven by domestic dissatisfaction. What happened in the MALARI incident isn’t just plain hatred towards Japanese goods and their capital flows. Rather, there is a complex political and economic discontent that has been built up prior to Tanaka’s visit in 1974. As reflected in the protestors’ demands. That is, to lower prices, fight corruption, and urge the disbanding of the President’s personal assistant (ASPRI). Similarly, Japanese product boycotts in Thailand also shared the same root with public dissatisfaction regarding domestic issues. With the rise of new social groups, especially the educated, discourse regarding how Thailand’s dictator’s military government undermined natural resources and human capital has grown in public.

Regarding domestic issues. Both cases share some similar problems. The first one is about democratization. Indonesia is still trying to restore its stability after the 1965 coup attempt. In the north, Thailand is also led by a military government. The political condition of both countries is in a vulnerable state. Second, the two governments faced constant pressure from the public, demanding the eradication of corruption. Business and government elites are accused of working behind the people to benefit their groups. This also correlates to the third problem, unjust economic development. The economy of both countries, quantitatively, increased. Yet, the distribution of wealth is relatively poor.

The Japanese failed to understand this situation. They even show their strong dominance in investment and trade. Putting intense pressure on domestic operators. In Indonesia, aligned with the newly passed 1967 foreign investment bill, the capital from Japanese investors flows to many sectors. Ranging from manufacturing (e.g., CENTEX in textiles and Toyota Astra in motor car assembly) to fisheries (Lindblad et al., 2002). Similarly, in Thailand, Japanese businessmen also invest heavily in the automotive and food industry (Thipakorn, 2014).

 

Fukuda And His Heart-to-Heart Strategy

After Tanaka, Takeo Miki assumed the PM office. During his premiership, he stated that Japan needed to intensify its relations with ASEAN (Shibusawa, 1984 in Edstrom, 2025). However, the Japan-ASEAN relationship still stands in an awkward position. The Association refused to invite PM Miki to the first ASEAN summit in 1976. What happened in ASEAN can not be overlooked by the Japanese. ASEAN geopolitical (with the rise of communism in Indo-china) and economic (source of Japan’s natural resources) position is in jeopardy. Maintaining stability and good relations with the region is critical for Japan’s national interest. After a series of anti-Japanese sentiment in ASEAN, Tokyo soon understood their unfavorable situation – that the region viewed them as capitalistic exploiters that were only interested in profits (Haddad, 1980).

A major reorientation then happened in the next premiership. During his 1977 tour in the Philippines, Japanese PM Takeo Fukuda gave a compelling “heart-to-heart” speech. He introduced the three pillars of Japan’s policy in Southeast Asia. The first one is about Japan’s commitment to peace and will not become a military threat. Second, Japan will consolidate its relations with Southeast Asia countries with mutual confidence and trust through heart-to-heart understanding. Third, the emphasis on equality between Japan and the ASEAN partnership. This tenet would later be labeled as the “Fukuda Doctrine”. These principles ought to rebrand Japan’s political-economy relations with ASEAN. Fukuda presented “heart to heart” cooperation in order to reverse his predecessor’s “resource diplomacy”. The success of the Fukuda Doctrine is reflected in the positive response by ASEAN countries. Until today, Japanese policy makers still regard the Fukuda Doctrine as a blueprint for the Japan-ASEAN partnership.

 

In Today’s Context

ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute The State of SEA 2024 report shows that Japan is placed as the most trusted partner among Southeast Asians. Despite the positive view, the number of investments and trade from Japan is fluctuating in a negative trend. China’s economic ascension could explain the prior. The Fukuda doctrine may have solved Japan’s poor relations with ASEAN in the past. But the dynamics of the present political economy of the region may lead policymakers in Tokyo to recalibrate their paradigm once again to stay relevant. With or without the Fukuda doctrine.

 

Reference

Edström, B. (2025). Japan’s evolving foreign policy doctrine: The long postwar. Springer Nature.

Haddad, W. W. (1980). Japan, the Fukuda doctrine, and ASEAN. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2(1), 10-29. doi:10.1355/cs2-1b

Lindblad, J. T. & Thee Kian Wee. (2002). Indonesian Economic Development and Japanese Technology (Working Paper Vol. 2002-09).  The International Centre for the Study of East Asian Development.  https://www.agi.or.jp/media/publications/workingpaper/WP2002-09.pdf

Seah, S. et al. (2024). The State of Southeast Asia: 2024 Survey Report. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/centres/asean-studies-centre/state-of-southeast-asia-survey/the-state-of-southeast-asia-2024-survey-report/

Thipakorn, S. (2014). The anti-Japanese movement in Thailand in the 1970s in international and domestic perspective. Asian Review, 27(1), 17-26. doi:10.58837/chula.arv.27.1.2

 

Short Biography:

A. F. Abbas graduated from the Department of International Relations at Hasanuddin University. During his study, he initiated the Japan Culture Club. A club for Hasanuddin’s IR students who are interested in Japan’s socio-culture.

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?

/0 Comments/in , /by

In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

 

 

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

 

 

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

Korea-Indonesia Cooperation Forum in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

In order to celebrate 50 years of relations between South Korea and Indonesia. On November 30, 2023, the ASEAN Studies Center at Gadjah Mada University was invited to join the Korea-Indonesia Cooperation Forum in Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations at Hotel Mulia Senayan Jakarta, Grand Ballroom, Indonesia. In this meeting, was raising the theme “K-Wave & I-Wave, Together for the Future”

The Center was part of an academic seminar session commemorating 50 years of Korean-Indonesian diplomatic relations. The session began with remarks from Lee Sang-deok, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Indonesia, then continued with Congratulations from Lee Kyung-soo, Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, Vice President of the Korean Council on Foreign Relations (KCFR), and Dino Patti Djalal, Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Chairman & Founder of FPCI (Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia).

In this session, there were four representatives from the ASEAN Studies Center, namely Dr. Dafri Agussalim (Executive Director), Falikul Isbah (Adjunct Researcher), and Desintha Dwi (Fellow Researcher) as panelists, and Tunggul Wicaksono (Research Manager) as moderator.

In this session, representatives of the ASEAN Studies Center discussed “Steps to Expand Korea-Indonesia Cooperation in Order to Strengthen ASEAN Centrality” together with other panelists, namely GU Bo-kyeung, Research Professor at the Korea Institute for ASEAN Studies, Busan University of Foreign Studies (BUFS ), and KO Young-kyung, Research Professor at the ASEAN Center, Korea University.

 

The discussion session then ended with a summary of the morning session by KO Young-kyung and Tunggul Wicaksono, and then continued with lunch together.

NACT Country Coordinators Meeting and Annual Conference 2023

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) are interconnected regions with significant potential for trade, infrastructure development, and economic growth. China introduced the BRI in 2013 to link Asia with Europe and Africa through infrastructure projects, trade routes, and cultural exchanges. Its implementation sparked discussion, prompting the need for a nuanced assessment of BRI’s impact on the global stage.

To generate a broader measure on this issue. On October 2023, 10-11, NACT China which is represented by the China Foreign Affairs University and NACT Indonesia which ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada represents,  held a Network of ASEAN-China Think Tanks (NACT) Country Coordinators Meeting and Annual Conference 2023 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. This year’s NACT has the theme “High-Quality BRI Cooperation and the AOIP”.

On the first day, the meeting began with the NACT Country Coordinators Meeting, which was divided into two sessions. The first session was Retrospective Remarks on 2023, delivered by Prof. Yang Yue (NACT China) and Dr. Dafri Agussalim (NACT Indonesia). Meanwhile, the second session, namely Introductory Remarks on 2024, was delivered by Mrs. Vithaya Xayavong, NACT Laos (NACT Co-chair 2024), and also Prof. Yang Yue. The NACT Country Coordinators Meeting then continued with a discussion about the 2024 NACT Working Group meetings and the collaboration between Tracks I and II, which then ended with a group photo of the CCM.

The meeting then continued with the NACT Annual Conference, which was opened by Dr. Fina Itriyati, Vice Dean of Collaboration, Alumni, and Research Affairs, FISIPOL UGM. Then continued with opening remarks from Prof. Gao Fei, Vice President, China Foreign Affairs University, and continued with keynote speakers from H.E. Hou Yanqi, Ambassador of China to ASEAN; H.E. Derry Aman, Permanent Representative of Indonesia to ASEAN; and H.E. Ekkaphab Phanthavong (pre-recorded), Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community for 2021-2024.

H.E. Hou Yanqi said that the ASEAN Indo-Pacific Outlook is an independent initiative of ASEAN, which includes important principles such as maintaining ASEAN’s central status, upholding openness and inclusiveness, and focusing on development and cooperation. Meanwhile, H.E. Derry Aman said that the ASEAN-China Joint Statement on Mutually Beneficial Cooperation on the AOIP, adopted during the 26th ASEAN-China Summit in Jakarta, signifies China’s support in ASEAN’s effort to mainstream and implement the AOIP.

Before the panel discussion session began, a group photo of the Annual Conference was also taken. NACT Annual Conference 2023 had three panel discussion sessions and raised the topic of “Promoting Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between the BRI and the AOIP”. The first session was moderated by Mr. Tunggul Wicaksono, Research Manager of the ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada. The first-panel session started with a presentation from Ms. Ousa Cheng (NACT Cambodia), who delivered a presentation entitled “Driving Sustainability Together Exploring ASEAN-China Partnership in the Belt and Road Initiative and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific”. Continued by Prof. Han Zhaoying (NACT China) on “The Great Power Rivalry between the U.S. and China and its implications for Southeast Asia’s stability”, and Dr. Nur Rachmat Yuliantoro (NACT Indonesia) on “Converging the BRI and the AOIP: A View from Indonesia”.

The second session was moderated by Prof. Yang Yue from Dalian University of Technology (NACT China), with the first panelists namely Mr. Bounphieng Pheuaphetlangsy (NACT Lao PDR), Continued by Mr. Calvin Cheng (NACT Malaysia), who presented his thoughts on “Avenues for cooperation between the BRI and the AOIP”, and Dr. Khin Ma Ma Myo (NACT Myanmar) as the next panelist explained her research on Myanmar, “BRI Infrastructure Development in Myanmar: The Case of China-Myanmar Economic Corridor on Regional Connectivity”.

Last but not least, Ms. Yulida Nuraini Santoso, MSc., Managing Director of the ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada, moderated the final panel discussion. The first panelist in this session, Mr. Jovito Jose P. Katigbak (NACT Philippines), presented his thoughts on “Harmonizing BRI and AIOP: A Philippine Perspective”. Continued by Dr. Kong Tuan Yuen (NACT Singapore) on “From RCEP to DEPA: Singapore Perspective on ASEAN-China Digital Cooperation“, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dulyapak Preecharush (NACT Thailand) on “Thailand between the BRI and the AOIP: A Geopolitical Analysis & Solution”, and Mr. Tu Anh Tuan (NACT Vietnam) as the last panelist explained her research on “Promoting the Synergy of AOIP and BRI in a Changing World”.

The NACT Annual Conference discussion panel session was also attended by several lecturers, students, and representatives from the International Relations department and the ASEAN Studies Center in Yogyakarta. During the three discussion panels, the discussion sessions at the NACT Annual Conference were active, and many insights were gained in these sessions.

The first day of NACT 2023 then ended with a Welcoming Dinner and a performance from Unit Kesenian Jawa Gaya Surakarta (UKJGS). Meanwhile, on the second day of NACT 2023, the participants went on a day-long field trip in Yogyakarta. Starting with visiting the Yogyakarta Royal Palace, then continuing with lunch at Bale Raos. After that, do a Batik Workshop at Omah Budoyo, and then end with a Closing Dinner at Candhari Heaven Restaurant.

ASC UGM x Kemenko Polhukam Focus Group Discussion

/0 Comments/in /by

Yogyakarta, 27 September 2023 – ASEAN Studies Center Gadjah Mada University (ASC UGM) x Coordinating Ministry for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs (Kemenko Polhukam) held a Focus Group Discussion (FGD). This FGD raised the theme “Indonesian Maritime Diplomacy Strategy in Promoting South China Sea Solidarity” and was attended by the BRIN Research Center, ASEAN Studies Center at UNS, the Indonesian Maritime Security Agency, and the Human Rights and Maritime Law Coordinator, Directorate General of ASEAN Politics and Security.

Bincang ASEAN on Disaster Risk Management: Measure the Readiness of Member Countries in Dealing with Disasters

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Friday, July 15th, 2022, ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah held a virtual Bincang ASEAN Discussion on the issue of disaster risk management. Rising the theme of “Measure the Readiness of Member Countries in Dealing with Disasters”, the Bincang ASEAN this time attempted to reveal how each of the ASEAN member countries and the ASEAN itself in aiding a disaster-prone area.

This time, we invited Dr. Daniel Petz as a keynote speaker, he is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Graz and has an interdisciplinary research interest in intergenerational climate justice and basic needs. In his presentation, Dr. Daniel Petz briefly explained the current trends, capacities, and challenges that are faced by Southeast Asian countries in disaster risk management. Dr. Daniel argued that ASEAN is one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world due to natural hazards, and 7.68% of the global disaster mortalities occurred in the ASEAN region during the period of 2015 – 2020, ironically Southeast Asia contributed to 6.135 of the 79.834 deaths to the disasters that occurred worldwide in the period.

According to this matter, Dr. Daniel explained the cycle of disaster management when a disaster strikes an area. The step-by-step that should be included in the disaster management recycle include preparedness, individual disaster response, response/relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and last but not least mitigation/risk assessment prevention. This cycle of disaster management steps should have a correlation each to make sure that the humanitarian assistance is implemented on the right track. To be well-implemented, this cycle should be supported by the aspect of capacity, which is determined as a combination of all strengths, attributes, and resources available within a community, society, or organization that can be used to achieve agreed goals. This capacity may include infrastructure and physical means, institutions, societal coping abilities, as well as human knowledge, skills, and collective attributes such as social relationships, leadership, and management.

The trends in disaster risk management in Southeast Asia are divided into several sectors including national capacity building (laws and policies, institutional structures, national regional, and local capacity), regional capacity building, climate change adaptation and resilience building, international frameworks, and the challenges itself. To support this, ASEAN has established the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance (AHA Centre) to provide assistance in dealing with the disasters that occurred in the region. The Centre has also implemented numerous systems and tools to facilitate the ASEAN Member States’ coordinated and collective response to disasters. Since its establishment, the Centre has enacted emergency mechanisms for a total of 36 disasters in seven countries across the region as of March 2021, which includes preparedness and assessment missions on seven occasions. Speaking of the challenges, the regional approach to disaster risk management is limited in the funding and capacities that could be resourced. Also, the challenges that came from the DRM itself on its preparedness, coordination, international standards, localization, integration of DRR, and CCA, and the current situation on the Covid-19 Pandemic.

To conclude his presentation, Tunggul Wicaksono, our research manager moderated and bridged Dr. Daniel Petz’s presentation to be responded to by Septyanto Galan Prakosa as the discussant for this Bincang ASEAN. Tunggul Wicaksono highlighted and has marked some notes that the DRM has evolved with its reduction measures along with the people and communities’ system that was already established. However, the challenges remain at the local, national, and regional levels also in adaptation and resilience building on climate change. In the ASEAN context, the member states agreed to handle the disaster in collective cooperation, and AHS Center has successfully developed training for capacity building, that includes the preparedness and assessment mission.

To enrich the discussion, Septyanto Galan Prakosa, a Ph.D student at Sun Yat-Sen University also joined to give his particular point of view regarding this matter.

“If we compare to other regions or any other regimes of regional organizations, not all of part of the words have a set of actions regarding DRR and DRM respectively. For example, if we compare it with South Asia, they already have this kind of mechanism such as SAARC, however, it is not yet complete or comprehensive as what ASEAN has. Of course, if we compare it with the EU, we still have room to learn. The general idea is, that we have no role model to develop in the first place. Since this area is special, in terms of political relations, economic development, and socio-cultural situation, particularly in terms of disaster management, reduction, and prevention in the area that is prone to disaster. Even though only two countries are most likely struck by disasters, the Philippines and Indonesia, basically how the Philippines protected us from typhoons and how Indonesia saved the rest of the region from the big earthquake that happened alongside the ring of fire. Still, some form of cooperation is a big achievement for us. So, if we want to critique, just remember that ASEAN has the mechanism and alternatives that can be used in response to disasters. If we try to evaluate certain points of disaster management that should be taken into mind about mitigation, prevention, response, and recovery, I want to emphasize the terms of preparedness. Because what we have lacked in ASEAN, blatantly speaking, needs to rethink about is how to harmonize or synchronize the existence of disaster risk with the basic elements of the region, which is the people who live there.”

The discussion also became more interesting with the Questions and Answers session with participants that came from many different backgrounds. The talk was lively as participants were eager to raise questions on the development and regional approach toward disaster risk management in ASEAN.

#ASEAN #SoutheastAsia #ASEANStudiesCenter #ASC #UGM#DRM #DisasterRiskManagement #Webinar #BincangASEAN#BringingASEANCloserToYou

 

Report by:

  • Syukron Subkhi (Media and Publication Officer)
  • Vanya Gerina A. (Programme Intern)

NACT Working Group Meeting 2022 | ASEAN-China Partnership: Mainstreaming the ASEAN Blue Economy to Accelerate Post-pandemic Recovery

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

In light of the difficulties in setting up a strong and fair legal framework, ocean exploitation is likely inevitable. ASEAN and China must build on the platform’s long-term potential and unlock the platform’s capabilities that are still underdeveloped for regions that rely heavily on the marine ecosystem. The partnership between the two parties was established at the ASEAN Summit in October 2021 in order to respond to this issue. The ASEAN Leaders’ Blue Economy Declaration is a manifestation of the ASEAN-China Partnership on Blue Economy. This shows a strong commitment to promoting sustainable development, particularly in the marine economy, as well as an effort to strengthen multilateral cooperation.

To generate a broader critical measure on this issue, the Network of ASEAN-China Think-Tanks held o Working Group Meeting on the mainstreaming of the ASEAN Blue Economy to Accelerate Post-Pandemic Recovery. Co-hosted by NACT China which is represented by the China Foreign Affairs University and NACT Indonesia which is represented by ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada, the working group meeting took place on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, through an online platform meeting in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic.

A representative of the blue economy expert from each of the 10 ASEAN member states and China represented by the NACT country coordinators have been invited to attend the meeting. Meeting participants are expected to gain an understanding of the Blue Economy and what it means for ASEAN member states and China, as well as identify best practices from each NACT representative, the main goals of this working group meeting. There are a few other objectives for the meeting, which include identifying possible strategic plans that ASEAN and China can use as the foundation for mutually beneficial cooperation.

The meeting was opened by the welcoming remarks from the Executive Director of ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada (Dr. Dafri Agussalim) as the country coordinator for NACT Indonesia. In his remarks, Dr. Dafri highlighted

“The importance of this meeting to be conducted is not only to gather and exchange constructive ideas, but also functioned as a platform to generate long term solutions on some critical issues surrounding the region, and most importantly on the cooperation with one of ASEAN dialogue partner, China”

To facilitate each representative and manage the discussion is conducted with a constructive and effective flow, the meeting was separated into three-panel sessions in accordance with the three pillars of ASEAN Community Vision 2025. The first-panel session raised the theme of “The Politics and Security of the Sea under the Blue Economy” under the Political and Economic Cooperation pillar. Moderated by Dr. Yang Yue, a Deputy Director of the Institute of Asian Studies, China Foreign Affairs University, the session was managed to feature a representative from NACT Lao PDR, represented by Ms. Haknilan Inthalath that delivered a presentation entitled “ASEAN-China Partnership in Blue Economy Development to Accelerate Post-pandemic Recovery”. Continued by a presentation from Prof. Su Hao, a representative of NACT China. He delivered a presentation entitled “Deepening the China-ASEAN Partnership on Blue Economy by Increasing Political Conditions and Consolidating Security Foundation”.

During the discussion, both presentations elicited strong reactions from the audience in terms of politics and maritime security in the context of blue economy cooperation. Mr. Than Tun, the representative of the NACT Myanmar from the Institute of Sciences and International Security Myanmar observed and respond to the issue by recalling the ASEAN-China pledges to promote the economic growth, in this matter, the political and security approach should be determined as the important aspects to support this implementation. The first panel of the meeting was closed with the discussion and concluded with the need for ASEAN and China to take joint action for those challenges (piracy, illegal fishing, and pollution), not only individual actions by certain countries.

The second panel of the meeting raised a theme on the pillar of Economic Cooperation, entitled “Economic Development and Technological Advancement”, and was moderated by Ms. Yulida Nuraini Santoso, M.Sc, a Managing Director of ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada. The second-panel session started with the presentation from Dr. Li Feng the other representative of NACT China, who delivered a presentation entitled “Blue Economy to Boom Economy”. Continued by Dr. I Made Andi Arsana the representative of NACT Indonesia presented his thoughts on “Geospatial Clarity towards Blue Economy: Challenges in Maritime Zone and Boundary Definition for Effective Utilization of Ocean Resources”. Dr. Lim Tai Wei from NACT Singapore as the next panelist explained his research on Singaporeans’ perspective on the economic development and technological advancement in the blue economy cooperation. Next, NACT Thailand was represented by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Thamasak Yeemin from Ramkamhaeng University presented the perspective of Thailand regarding the technological advancement for the blue economy development. Representatives from NACT Vietnam, Dr. Le Trung Kien, and NACT Cambodia, Amb. Pou Sothirak, and the Cambodia Institute for Cooperation and Peace’s Dr. Henry Chan, continued the discussion by explaining their points of view and perspectives.

Last but not least, Dr. Falikul Isbakh from the University of Gadjah Mada’s Department of Sociology moderated the final panel discussion. In the context of blue economy cooperation, the third-panel session addressed the socio-cultural issue of “Maintaining Environmental Conservation.” “Enhancing ASEAN-China Cooperation on Marine Environmental Protection: A Perspective from the Philippines” was delivered by NACT Philippines representative Mr.  Edcel John Ibara, followed by Prof. Li Xia, the third NACT China representative. “Committing Science to Sustainable Resource Management” was the final presentation given by Prof. Dato’ Noraieni Mokhtar of the NACT Malaysia at this NACT Working Group Meeting 2022. There was a productive discussion between the panelists about the opportunities for ASEAN and China in the context of blue economy cooperation before concluding the panel session.

Professor Guo Yanjun, Director of the Institute of Asian Studies at the China Foreign Affairs University, delivered the closing remarks to the NACT Working Group Meeting 2022. According to Professor Guo Yanjun, ASEAN and China are taking advantage of the many opportunities to develop and collaborate on an economic partnership in the blue economy as a way to speed up the post-pandemic recovery process. Professor Guo Yanjun hopes that ASEAN-China cooperation on the blue economy will be one of the most vigorous and promising cooperations in ASEAN Community Vision 2025’s three pillars.

 

Report by
Syukron Subkhi
Media and Publication Officer

Country Coordinator’s Meeting Network of ASEAN-China Think Tanks 2022

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah joined to Network of ASEAN China Think-Tanks Country Coordinators’ Meeting through online platform. This Meeting was held annually with the purpose to discuss the general theme, sustainable development, and working group proposals for the upcoming NACT Working Group meetings.

The co-host for these meetings was NACT Cambodia. As the focal point for Indonesia, the ASEAN Studies Center was represented by Executive Director, Dr. Dafri Agussalim and Managing Director, Yulida Nuraini Santoso. After considering several themes proposed by the country coordinators, the meeting concluded that the general theme of the 2022 NACT Working Group (NACT WG) meeting will focus on ASEAN-China Partnership: Mainstreaming the ASEAN Blue Economy to Accelerate Post-pandemic Recovery, this theme was proposed by ASEAN Studies Center UGM as the representative of NACT Indonesia.

The “Blue Economy” has become a popular concept that is adopted in policymaking with an emerging focus on coasts and oceans as an essential driver for economic growth. Despite the impact of the pandemic, ASEAN continued to maintain its position as China’s largest trading partner. The establishment of the ASEAN-China partnership on Blue Economy was set during the ASEAN Summit, October 2021. The Blue Economy initiative is expected to prosper ASEAN- China relations while supporting SDG 14: Life Below Water and the Targets of the Paris Agreement.

The NACT Working Group Meeting will be held in the mid-year on 7th June 2022 through an online platform and will be coordinated by NACT Indonesia represented by ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Report by:

Syukron Subkhi | Media and Publication Officer
#ASC #ASEANStudiesCenter #UGM #SoutheastAsia#BringingASEANCloserToYou #NACT#NetworkOfASEANChinaThinkTanks

Paths to Youth Empowerment: Activism, Education, and Mobility

/0 Comments/in /by

On Wednesday, 7 July 2021, ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held a Webinar Series titled “Paths to Youth Empowerment: Activism, Edu cation, and Mobility” which was led by Martin Alistair, Program and Research Intern at ASEAN Studies Center UGM. The discussion highlighted how the youth especially in Southeast Asia has roles in several aspects in building a better future in the region.

The first speaker is Ili Nadiah Dzulfakar, she is a Chairperson in KLIMA Action Malaysia (KAMY). One of the main points of Nadiah’s presentation was the importance of including a diverse set of voices in the fight against climate change. She also mentioned that since COVID started, Klima Action Malaysia has focused on coalition building with other groups that represent these voices and have mobilized youth to provide COVID aid to indigenous communities across Malaysia.

The second speaker is Calvin Wee, he is the Co-Founder of The Young SEAkers. Calvin discussed how the history of ASEAN’s formation causes unique challenges in the development of a common ASEAN identity, particularly due to the diversity of culture, development, and history of countries in ASEAN. He explained how the common ASEAN identity is important for ASEAN to adjust to the world order, and cope with unique challenges that have arisen due to globalization. He argued that youth collaboration, cultural understanding, and friendships across ASEAN are critical to the formation of this common identity.

This webinar was organized by the Research and Program Interns at ASEAN Studies Center UGM from HKU College, Mueller Kieta Grace and Martin Alistair.

#ASC #UGM #ASEAN #BringingASEANclosertoyou #Youthempowerment #WebinarSeries #BincangASEAN #KlimaActionMalaysia #ASEANSEAkers #ayiep

Bincang ASEAN – ReaLISM #1 | Reading, Learning, and Investigating Southeast Asia through Movies

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Wednesday, 29th September 2021, ASEAN Studies Center Universitas Gadjah Mada held a Bincang ASEAN – ReaLISM #1 “Reading, Learning, and Investigating Southeast Asia through Movies.” In this Bincang ASEAN, ASC UGM hosts a screening of Southeast Asia-related documentaries with Muhammad Ammar Hidayahtulloh, M.Dev.Prac. as the discussion moderator. In the discussion, it is reviewing a documentary movie titled “Standing On The Edge of The Thorn”.

The discussion has invited Dr. Robert Lemelson, Ph.D., an anthropologist and documentary filmmaker of the movie, Indiana Puspa Dewi, S.S., MA, a Ph.D. Candidate in Linguistic Anthropology at School of Languages and Cultures University of Queensland, and Ninik Supartini, M.Si Developmental Psychologist and Gender Researcher at Robert Lemelson Foundation.

“Standing on the Edge of a Thorn” is an intimate portrait of a family in rural Indonesia grappling with poverty, mental illness, and participation in the sex trade. The movie has succeeded in portraying how gender violence issues happened. During the discussion, Dr. Robert Lemelson, Ph. D has highlighted that this movie has brought up the issue of gender violence, which was previously considered a taboo subject to be discussed by the public. Even though the problem is happening a lot and affects the psychology of other family members, it is still considered taboo to bring up this issue. Ninik Supartini, M. Si. has also stated her efforts to approach people to recognize gender violence. According to her, gender violence is a structural issue and requires a prolonged approach to resolve it. Indiana Puspa Dewi, S.S., MA, a Ph.D., has also stated the importance of maximizing the village’s cultural background and situation to handle cases of gender violence in the community. The discussion also became more interesting with the Q&A session with participants of this movie screening.

The discussion wrapped up with the importance of being brave to speak up about gender violence issues happening in the community. Other than that, it is also highlighted that cultural resources play a critical role in empowering women.

Report by Citta Azarine A
(Media Intern at ASC UGM)

#ASEAN #SoutheastAsia #ASEANStudiesCenter #ASC #UGM #Webinar #ReaLISM #MovieScreening #MovieDiscussion #StandingontheEdgeofaThorn