Overcoming the China-US Rivalry: Time for a New Regional Order?

When the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, many believed that bipolar politics had finally ended for good.  However, the world actually became an even more uncertain place; lasting peace was nowhere to be found. And now, as we brace ourselves to weather the escalating trade war between China and the US, there are those who feel that a new Cold War is rapidly in the making.

Many Americans think that preventing China from disrupting the regional order benefits not only the US, but also the rest of the Asia-Pacific region.  Meanwhile, the Chinese believe that they are simply correcting the injustices that have historically been dealt to them by foreign powers.  Therefore, any country that intends to preserve the status quo is seen as perpetuating such injustices.

These geopolitical changes have provided rich grounds for academics and foreign policymakers to generate ideas in the pursuit of global order. Recently, the discourse has focused on the development of an Indo-Pacific cooperation framework. And for its part, Indonesia is pushing for an ASEAN-centric, inclusive Indo-Pacific region that is conducive for peaceful dialogue and multi-field cooperation.

At the same time, it is important that we also keep our minds open to the possibility of other forms of cooperation that could take shape around the world.

In his publication titled The China Choice, Australian Professor Hugh White outlined that there are more than two choices for the US in dealing with China. The first two choices are obvious: to confront the Chinese (as a means to preserve America’s dominance in the region) OR to allow China’s rise (while hoping that the Chinese would refrain from causing conflicts).

Professor White argued that the third choice is for the US to share power with China. Considering that both countries can deny leadership to the other, it is impossible for either China or the US to single-handedly dominate the Asia-Pacific. In other words, the idea of the US maintaining uncontested leadership in the region is as illusory as the fear that China will one day rule over the Asia-Pacific.

Professor White then suggested the possible establishment of a new concert of Asia, which is loosely modeled on the Concert of Europe that existed between 1815 and 1914.  Indeed, the Concert of Europe was far from perfect; conflicts continued to exist during the period, including the war for German unification. The Concert of Europe also ended with the outbreak of World War I. 

Nevertheless, when looking at European inter-state relations during those 99 years, conflicts among major countries were avoided because each of them recognize that they cannot dominate the entire region. During that period as well, Europe experienced massive growths in the economic, social, and political fields.  Such conditions founded Europe’s current influential position in international affairs.

According to Professor White, an Asian version of this concert would have four “great powers”, namely the US, China, Japan, and India, as well as “middle powers” such as South Korea, Australia, and Indonesia.  According to him, the rules of this “Asian Concert” are straightforward:

1. Such great power must accept the legitimacy of the other’s political system.  In other words, the US should cease causing domestic instabilities in China;

1. By agreeing to disagree, each great power must be willing to make concessions in order to achieve resolutions through peaceful negotiations;

1. Each great power must allow others to build up armaments, and allow the use of them if there are forces challenging their status as a great power; and

1. All the powers must be able to develop a “code of conduct” that would “govern” interactions with one another.

Of course, this perspective is not foolproof. Indonesia’s role as a middle power is eclipsed by the “great power politics”. Yet we all know that Indonesia is the largest country and economy in Southeast Asia.

Furthermore, although the Concert of Europe in its time brought peace to the people, the conditions may not be the same in today’s Asia-Pacific.  The Austria, Prussia, Russia and the UK of that old period are different from today’s China, the US, Japan, and India.  And most interestingly, the great powers of the past were never economically inter-linked so closely like today’s influential countries.

Regardless, in striving for an Indo-Pacific regional architecture, it is important that we constantly think outside of the box. This even includes embracing ideas and perspectives that are as brave as Professor White’s.

In dealing with China, we must go beyond the choices of confronting the Chinese head-on OR appeasing their rise to dominance. There must be a more nuanced third, or even fourth choice.  If China keeps on growing, then its economic and political clout would be overwhelming. Therefore, in the interest of most countries in the region—including Indonesia—it is important to “negotiate” a new relationship with China before the power balance further shifts in the Chinese’ way.

Three Years and Three Days

Book Review

Jacqueline Kent, Take Your Best Shot : The Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard

ISBN: 9780143570561

What if Labour was in power…?

Ow come on, admit it.  With all the recent problems besieging Indonesia-Australia relations, it is difficult not to be asking this question.  Of course, as officials, we are not supposed to show any preference towards one government or another.  That would be “intruding on domestic politics”, a taboo in diplomacy.  Then again, for ages, western diplomats have officially indicated their preference for which South American, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian leaders should be in power.  And many times, they were even willing to go to war over this.

Book cover

I’m only human, and being human means having doubts, and of course, having preferences.  I remember once writing in an essay on political theory: “contendo ergo sum”, I compare therefore I am.  And when I look at how difficult relations have become between Indonesia and Australia, I can’t help but imagine how things would be if it wasn’t the Coalition government now in Canberra making the calls on Australian foreign policy towards Indonesia.

It was with these thoughts in my mind that I read Jacqueline Kent’s Take Your Best Shot: The Prime Ministership of Julia Gillard in three (or was it four) sittings.

Yes, Julia Gillard.  I know most people would probably associate recent images of the ALP with Kevin Rudd. However, I’ve always felt a certain admiration for the smart, sharp-looking Ms. Gillard.  Ok, Rudd speaks Chinese, and that certainly makes him cool.  But somehow Gillard would be the person I’d chose as my boss (if I could ever choose bosses).

There’s a personal memory that will always remind me of Julia Gillard, Australia’s first female Prime Minister.  On December 20, 2011, just as I watched Ms. Gillard meet President SBY (less than 10 meters away from me) for the first ever Indonesia-Australia Annual Leaders Meeting in Bali, my pregnant wife called me and told me that her water just broke.  It was a moment in my life.    And sure enough, 20 hours later, Gaia Veronika was born.  I had thought of naming her Julia, but Gaia sounded close enough to Julia, I figured.

Anyways, back to the book, Kent has previously written a biography of Julia.  And so, early in the book, she admitted the possibility of a certain bias, as she pictures Ms. Gillard as Cate Blanchett’s Queen Elizabeth in that 1998 Oscar winning movie.  I didn’t mind this at all, because I think there has been just too much bias against Ms. Gillard throughout her leadership of the Australian government.

Kent writes that Ms. Gillard was frequently criticized for being a “nuts-and-bolts legislator, a fixer of problems, rather than a prime minister with large vision”.  Many times, visionary leaders are well loved by the people.  But there are also moments when the people do get tired of big words, and wish that leaders would just get down to work. 

The book is not meticulously detailed, but provides an excellent overview of the challenges that Ms. Gillard faced throughout her three years and three days stay at the top of the Australian government.  It talks about her battles with other legislators on issues such as climate change, finance and education.  It highlights her success in a passing a sleuth of clean energy bills, achieving something that great politicians like John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull and even Kevin Rudd couldn’t do, especially not with a minority government.

The book also goes into an issue that often pits Australia against its northern neighbours: asylum seekers.  Remaining conservative on this issue (unlike Mr. Rudd and his ideal of a “big Australia”), Ms. Gillard put forward the need for border management and a sustainable immigration policy.  At the same time, she showed interest in the possibility of working towards a regional solution to the problem. 

Of course, the book looks into two issues that seem to highlight Ms. Gillard’s term in office: her supposed inability to convey the successes of her government to the public, and her protracted battle with Kevin Rudd.

On her cold, Elizabethan public image, Kent argues that Julia is actually an eloquent speaker, who narrates in a logical and systematic way.  However, her problem is that she prefers to make these speeches at the Parliament, and not in front of the media cameras. Her government had to explain complex policies to a generally resistant public, while at the same time faced the challenges of an Opposition leader who was skilled in crafting “slogans” and a media unskilled in reporting nuance.  This kinda reminds me of Indonesia today.

And on dealing with Kevin Rudd, Kent describes the removal of Mr. Rudd was as swift as the Iraqi invasion.  However, like that invasion, it was followed by a long period of unpredictability and instability.  While Ms. Gillard is portrayed by Kent in a generously favourable manner, the undertone was obvious: the implosion of the ALP leadership.  Like that really popular REM song, “Everybody hurts…”

As I finished the book, I felt my honest respect towards Ms. Gillard confirmed.  Apparently, being a female Prime Minister is not easy, even in a country as democratic and egalitarian as Australia. And more so, because she didn’t feel the need to ensure a legacy by smiling pretty to the media.  Because, like she said, “chasing popularity would be the death of purpose”.

Indonesia and Australia's Relationship Has Room to Grow

(Repost of article written with Junianto James Losari and published in The Jakarta Globe on 6 July 2012)

Indonesia-Australia relations have grown steadily since their lowest point in the late 1990s. We have matured in our appreciation of one another as regional powers in this Asia-Pacific Century. And tragedies like the Bali bombing and the Aceh tsunami have brought us closer as neighbors.

A recent survey by Australia’s Lowy Institute pointed out that most Indonesians rated Australia as one of the most trusted countries to act responsibly at the international stage.

However, as much as these conditions have augured better feelings of closeness, it is not difficult to see that bilateral cooperation has been overshadowed by issues in the political and security fields. While economic opportunities are abundant, Indonesia and Australia have yet to maximize on this potential.

This appears to be the message that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono tried to convey during his visit to Darwin earlier this week, as part of the 2nd Annual Leaders Meeting.  Among the many areas of bilateral cooperation currently existing, Yudhoyono chose to focus on trade, investment, connectivity and tourism.

Indeed, in economic terms, Indonesia and Australia are not minnows. As emerging economies and part of the G-20, the two countries’ economic performance has in recent years commanded the attention of many around the world.

Not only that, there is considerable complement between the two economies, as shown by the differences in goods and services produced and consumed. These conditions should make the Indonesia-Australia economic partnership matter significantly. But the truth is that trade growth remains sluggish.

In 2011, the two countries recorded total trade of $10.75 billion. This is an increase compared to previous years’ numbers. But if we were to compare them against Australia’s trade with Malaysia ($13 billion), Thailand ($15.3 billion) or Singapore ($20.7 billion), then Indonesians and Australians should expect more from their growing ties.

On investment cooperation, Indonesia remains Australia’s biggest blind spot. Up until 2010, Australian foreign direct investment to Indonesia stands at $3.55 billion, which amounts to 1.4 percent of its total FDI abroad. More concerning, the realization of Australian FDI in Indonesia in 2011 actually decreased about 58 percent from the previous year.

With a population of approximately 240 million, Indonesian consumers and labor resources not only provide a lucrative market, but also tremendous potential for Australian investment. We see this in Indonesia’s growing demand for beef, which is a result of the Indonesian people’s changing culinary habits and lifestyles.

As the growth of democracy complements economic achievements, the stable social and political conditions have generated a conducive domestic climate for greater foreign investment.

Nevertheless, while the numbers may not reflect Indonesia and Australia’s real economic potential, there are ways to boost this economic cooperation.

Indonesia’s entry-into-force of the Asean-Australia-New Zealand FTA this year is one of these means. Spanning 12 economies, around 600 million people and a combined GDP of $3.1 trillion, the AANZFTA covers the goods, services, investment and intellectual property sectors. While aimed at promoting the economic growth of all countries involved, the agreement should provide channels for enhancing trade and investment ties between Indonesia and Australia, which are by far the two largest economies in the group.

Tariff elimination under the AANZFTA will enable duty-free trade. Indonesian products benefitting from this arrangement include, wood, paper and paperboard, crude oil, plastic pipes and ceramics. Meanwhile, the benefitting Australian products include wheat, aluminum, cotton and fertilizer.

The AANZFTA also liberalizes investment in several areas for Australian companies, while at the same time providing a regime for the legal protection of investors. Such a framework, coupled with Indonesia’s positive investment climate, should provide sufficient reason for Australian companies to join efforts.

In addition, during the visit to Darwin, Yudhoyono welcomed efforts to begin negotiations for an Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Partnership Agreement. When completed, the agreement will provide a comprehensive, targeted framework for greater overall economic cooperation.

Among these targets would be to enhance connectivity at the national, bilateral and sub-regional levels. The strengthening of connectivity not only creates job opportunities through the investment in infrastructures, but also expands markets, trade flow and people-to-people connections.

Through participation in realizing Indonesia’s Master Plan for Expansion and Acceleration of Economic Development (MP3EI), Australia would not only assist Indonesia’s domestic connectivity, but also open opportunities for greater bilateral connectivity, particularly between Indonesia’s eastern parts and Australia’s Northern Territory.

The 1992 MoU signed between Indonesia and the Northern Territory is a basis for cooperation on primary and tertiary industries, air services, energy, professional services, manufacturing, processing, transport and infrastructure.

Government-to-government efforts will continue to evolve positively, yet the onus falls on the private sector to identify, grasp and maximize on these potential opportunities.

The Path of a Middle Power

I've always been a proponent of this notion called "middle power".  For a long time, Indonesia was at the door, knocking to be let into the grouping of countries which call themselves middle powers like Canada, Australia, and others.  And now, I believe that Indonesia is well within its right to call itself a "middle power" and start to engage the international forum as such.

The article printed in the Jakarta Post was derived from a paper that I wrote for my Sesdilu course.  Am hoping that it would let the ball roll on further discussion on this issue, especially among my peers.

The link is as follows: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/10/30/indonesia-a-new-middle-power039.html

Linking with the Land-Down-Under

The media in Indonesia has become a battleground for ideas.  Am happy about this 'coz it signifies, in many ways, the maturity of democracy.  However, at the same time, I cannot help but feel that the Indonesian people remain very emotional in their treatment of the media as well as their digestion of matters in the media.

We have a long way before the Indonesian people can learn to be critical of the media, and use the media truly as an means to enhance their participation in this democracy.  

The Indonesian people also should not be provoked by the media.  It is important to recognize that the media provides a forum for forwarding different views on anything under the sun; difference should be celebrated with a view to moving forward successfully.

I take the example of my assessment of The Jakarta Post's selection of articles on Indonesia-Australia relations.  On this occasion, I cannot but applaud the Jakarta Post's attempt to present multiple sides of the story.  And more so, the fact that the Jakarta Post printed my letter as a source of reflection.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/1999/10/11/two-neighbors-odds.html