Connect with us

Southeast Asia

Building strategic trust for peace, cooperation and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region

Published

on

At the outset, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong our Singaporean host, Dr. John Chipman and the organisers of the 12th Shangri-La Dialogue for your kind invitation to me to attend and address this important forum. Since its inception 12 years ago, the Shangri-La Dialogue has truly become one of the most substantive and meaningful security dialogues in the region. I do believe that the full presence of government officials, military leaders, prestigious scholars and all distinguished delegates at this forum reflects the interest and the efforts to jointly preserve peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region in the context of a dynamically changing world.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
While languages and expressions might differ, I am sure we all agree that without trust, there would be no success and harder work asks for bigger trust. In Vietnam, there is a saying that ‘if trust is lost, all is lost.’ Trust is the beginning of all friendships and cooperation, the remedy that works to prevent calculations that could risk conflicts. Trust must be treasured and nurtured constantly by concrete, consistent actions in accordance with the common norms and with a sincere attitude.

In the 20th century, Southeast Asia in particular and the Asia-Pacific in general were fierce battlefields and deeply divided for decades. It might be said that the entire region always had a burning desire for peace. To have peace, development and prosperity, it is a must to build and consolidate strategic trust. In other words, we need to build strategic trust for peace, cooperation and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. That is what I wish to share with you at this forum.

To begin with, Vietnam has a profound confidence in the bright future of development and cooperation in our region. Yet the trend of increased engagement and competition, particularly by big powers, not only offers positive elements but also involves negative risks that require us to take initiative and work together to prevent.
The Asia-Pacific region now enjoys dynamic development and is home to the world’s three biggest economies, and many emerging ones. Here, the trend of multi-layer, multi-sector cooperation and linkages is evolving vigorously and is becoming the prevailing one of the day. This is quite a promising prospect for us all.
However, looking back at the full picture of the region in the past years, we cannot fail to be concerned over the simmering risks and challenges to peace and security.

Competition and engagement are by themselves normal facts in the course of cooperation and development. Yet if such competition and engagement embrace calculations that are only in one’s own interest, without equality, respect of international law or transparency, then strategic trust could in no way be reinforced, and there could be a chance for the rise of division, suspicion and the risk of mutual containment, thus adversely affecting peace, cooperation and development.
The unpredictable developments in the Korean Peninsula; sovereignty and territorial disputes from the East China Sea to the East Sea (South China Sea) that are evolving with great complexity, threatening regional peace and security – firstly maritime security and safety as well as the freedom of navigation – have indeed caused deep concern to the international community. Somewhere in the region, there have emerged preferences for unilateral might, groundless claims, and actions that run counter to international law and stem from imposition and power politics.
I would like to draw your further attention to the fact that maritime transport and communications are growing in scale and acquiring a much greater significance. It is projected that three quarters of global trade will be made via maritime routes and two thirds of that will be shipped across the East Sea. A single irresponsible action or instigation of conflict could well lead to the interruption of these huge trade flows, with unforeseeable consequences not only to regional economies but also to the entire world.

In the meantime, the threats of religious and ethnic conflicts, egoistic nationalism, secessionism, violence, terrorism, cyber security, etc. are still very much present. Global challenges like climate change, the rise of sea levels, pandemics or water resources and the interests of upstream and downstream riparian countries with shared rivers, etc. have become ever more acute.
We should realize that such challenges and risks of conflict are not to be underestimated. We all understand that if this region falls into instability and especially, armed conflicts, there will be neither winners nor losers. Rather, all will lose. Suffice it to say, therefore, that working together to build and reinforce strategic trust for peace, cooperation and prosperity in the region is in the shared interest of us all. For Vietnam, strategic trust is perceived, above all, as honesty and sincerity.

Secondly, to build strategic trust, we ourselves need to abide by international law, to uphold the responsibilities of nations, especially of major powers, and work to improve the efficiency of multilateral security cooperation mechanisms.
In global history, many nations have suffered from irreparable losses when they fell victim to power politics, conflict and wars. In today’s civilised world, the UN Charter, international law and the universal principles and norms serve as the common values of all humanity and must be respected. This also represents the precondition for the building of strategic trust.
Each state should always be a responsible stakeholder in the pursuit of common peace and security. Countries, both big and small, must build their relations on the basis of equality and mutual respect and, at a higher level, on mutual strategic trust. Big states have a greater role to play and can contribute more, but they should also shoulder bigger responsibilities in the cultivation and consolidation of such strategic trust. Besides, when it comes to the right voice or beneficial initiatives, it does not matter whether they come from big or small countries. The principles of cooperation and equal, open dialogue in ASEAN and other forums advocated by ASEAN, as well as this Shangri-La Dialogue, are born from and maintained by such a mindset.

I fully share the views of H.E. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia who said last year at this forum that small and medium countries could help lock major powers into a durable regional architecture. I also agree with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on what he said in a speech in Beijing last September: that a reliable and responsible cooperation between the United States and China would positively contribute to the common interest of the region. We all understand that the Asia-Pacific has sufficient room for all intra- and extra-regional countries to work together and share their interests. The future of the Asia-Pacific has been and will continue to be, shaped by the roles and interactions by all countries in the region and the world, particularly by the major powers and certainly, by the indispensable role of ASEAN.
I believe that no regional country would oppose the strategic engagement of extra-regional powers if such engagement aims to enhance cooperation for peace, stability and development. We should expect more of the roles played by major powers, particularly the United States and China – the two powers having the biggest roles in and responsibilities to the future of the region and the world. What is important is that such expectation should be reinforced by strategic trust and such strategic trust must be reflected in concrete and constructive actions of these nations.
We attach special importance to the roles played by a vigorously rising China and by the United States – a Pacific power. We would expect and support the roles of the United States and China, once their strategies and actions conform to international law and respect the independence and sovereignty of nations, to not only bring about benefits to them, but also to contribute genuinely to our common peace, cooperation and prosperity.

What I want to further underline is that the existing regional cooperation mechanisms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meetings Plus (ADMM+) as well as the Shangri-La Dialogue offer opportunities to foster multilateral security cooperation and find solutions to the challenges that arise. Yet it could be said that what is still missing, or at least still insufficient, is the strategic trust in the implementation of those arrangements. The first and foremost thing is to build a mutual trust when confronting challenges; taking account of the impacts of interactions, and enhancing practical cooperation in various areas, and at different levels and layers – both bilateral and multilateral. Once there is sufficient strategic trust, we could advance and expand cooperation and find solutions to any problem, even the most sensitive and difficult one.
Thirdly, when talking about peace, stability, cooperation and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific, we cannot help but mention an ASEAN of unity and consensus, playing its central role in many multilateral cooperation forums.
It was hard to believe that a South East Asia once divided and embedded in conflicts during the Cold War could become a community of nations united in diversity and playing a central role in an evolving regional architecture like ASEAN today. The participation of Vietnam in ASEAN in 1995 marked a new era of development in ASEAN towards building a common house for all South East Asian nations true to its name. The success of ASEAN is the fruit of a long persevering process to build trust, nurture the culture of dialogue and cooperation, and cultivate the sense of responsibility to the shared destiny of South East Asian nations.

ASEAN is proud to be an example of the principle of consensus and mutual trust in the making of its own decisions. That principle is the foundation for equality among the member states, whether it is Indonesia with nearly a quarter of a billion people or Brunei Darussalam with less than half a million. That principle also constitutes the foundation for extra-regional countries to place their trust in ASEAN as an ‘honest broker’ in guiding the numerous regional cooperation mechanisms.
With a mindset of shared interests rather than one of win-lose, the enlargement of the East Asia Summit (EAS) to include Russia and the United States, the ADMM+ process that was put into reality in Vietnam in 2010, and the success of EAS, ARF and ADMM in the years that followed, have further consolidated the ground for a regional architecture in which ASEAN plays the central role, bringing about trust in multilateral security cooperation in the region.

I also wish to refer to Myanmar as a vivid example of the success of persevering with dialogue on the basis of building and reinforcing trust, respecting the legitimate interests of each other, which has helped open up a bright future not only for Myanmar but also for our whole region.
There have been profound lessons learned about the fundamental value of ASEAN’s consensus and unity in maintaining equal and mutually beneficial relations with partner countries and maximising its proactive role in handling strategic issues of the region. ASEAN could only be strong and able to build on its role when it is united as one. An ASEAN lacking unity will by itself, lose its place and will not act in the interest of any country, even ASEAN member states or partners. We need an ASEAN united and strong, cooperating effectively with all countries to nurture peace and prosperity in the region, not an ASEAN in which member states are forced to take sides with one country or the other for the benefit of their own relationships with big powers. We have a responsibility to multiply trust in the settlement of problems, enhance cooperation for mutual benefit, and to combine our national interest harmoniously with that of other nations and of the whole region.
Vietnam and other ASEAN members always desire that other countries, particularly the major powers, support the ASEAN Community’s central role, its principle of consensus and unity.

To return to the issue of the East Sea, ASEAN and China have travelled a long way with great difficulty to come to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) adopted during the ASEAN Summit in Phnom Penh in 2002. To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the DOC, ASEAN and China have agreed to work towards a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC). ASEAN and China need to uphold their responsibilities and  mutually reinforce strategic trust, first and foremost by strictly implementing the DOC, and then redoubling efforts to formulate a COC that conforms to international law and in particular, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

We believe that ASEAN and its partners can work together to develop a feasible mechanism that could guarantee maritime security and safety and freedom of navigation in the region. In so doing, we will not only help ensure maritime security and safety, and freedom of navigation, and create conditions for the settlement of disputes but will also assert the fundamental principles of maintaining peace, and enhancing development cooperation in the modern world.

As for non-traditional security challenges such as the security of water resources on common rivers, by building strategic trust, enhancing cooperation and harmonizing national interests with common interests, I believe that we will able to achieve successes, thus making practical contributions to peace, cooperation and development in the region.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear friends,
Throughout her thousands of years of history, Vietnam has suffered numerous pains and losses due to wars. Vietnam always aspires to peace and desires to contribute to the consolidation of peace and enhancement of friendship and development cooperation in the region and the world. To have a genuine and lasting peace, the independence and sovereignty of any country, whether large or small, must be respected; and differences in interests, culture, etc. must be subject to open and constructive dialogues of mutual understanding and mutual respect.
We do not forget the past but need to put it behind us and look forward to the future. With the tradition of offering peace and friendship, Vietnam always desires to work with its partners to build and reinforce strategic trust for peace, cooperation and development on the basis of the principle of respect for independence, sovereignty, equality and mutual benefit.

Vietnam consistently persists with a foreign policy of independence, self-reliance, multilateralisation and diversification of external relations, being a friend and reliable partner to all nations, and a responsible member of the international community. Vietnam wishes, and has spared no efforts to build and deepen, strategic partnerships and mutually beneficial cooperative partnerships with other countries. It is also our desire to establish strategic partnerships with all the permanent members of the UN Security Council once the principles of independence, sovereignty, non-interference in the internal affairs of each other, mutual respect, equal and mutually beneficial cooperation are committed to and seriously implemented.
At this prestigious forum, I have the honour to announce that Vietnam has decided to participate in UN peacekeeping operations, first in such areas as military engineering, military medicine and military observation.

Vietnam’s defence policy is that of peace and self-defence. Vietnam will not be a military ally to any country and will not allow any country to set up military bases on Vietnamese territory. Vietnam will not ally itself with any country to counter another.
In past years, sustained high economic growth has enabled Vietnam to increase its national defence budget at a reasonable level but lower than that of economic growth. Vietnam’s army modernisation is only for self-defence and the safeguard of our legitimate interests. It does not, in any way target any other country.

With regard to the present threats and challenges to regional security such as the Korean Peninsula, the East China Sea and the East Sea, etc, Vietnam adheres to the principle of peaceful dispute settlement on the basis of international law, respecting the independence, sovereignty and the legitimate interests of each other. All parties concerned need to exercise self-restraint and must not resort to force or threat to use force.
Once again, Vietnam reiterates its consistent compliance with the ASEAN Six-point Statement on the South China Sea and will do its utmost to work together with ASEAN and China to observe the DOC seriously and soon arrive at the COC. As a coastal State, Vietnam reaffirms and defends its legitimate rights and interests in accordance with international law, especially the 1982 UNCLOS.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear friends,
Peace, cooperation and development represent the interest, the ardent aspirations and the common future of all countries and peoples. In the open spirit of the Shangri-La Dialogue, I would call upon you all to join hands and take concrete actions to build and reinforce strategic trust for an Asia-Pacific region of peace, cooperation and prosperity.

 

Posting granted exclusively for the Modern Diplomacy

(*)Keynote Address at the 12th Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore, May 31st, 2013

Continue Reading
Comments

Southeast Asia

No such thing as sustainable palm oil”? What nonsense

Published

on

Last week an Italian scientist, Roberto Gatti, made headlines in Malaysia when he proclaimed that there is “no such thing as sustainable palm oil”. The only problem is that Mr Gatti is wrong.

Indeed, oil palm producers have for the last 15 years become the lightning rod for the public’s growing anger on issues relating to deforestation, global warming, subpar labour practices, and transboundary haze.

Only a silent few have questioned these allegations, leading the vast majority of the public to swallow these headlines hook, line, and sinker – leaving the narrative unchallenged. It is as if the endless supply of information in today’s modern era, through quick and easy forms of digital content has reached a point of overload. Sadly, it has worn us down and induced a premature form of mental fatigue, taking away our ability to distinguish between credible research and catchy ‘clickbait’, and ultimately what is right and wrong, and whether we should even question it.

The palm industry is a vital agricultural player today, globally. Whilst it only occupies less than 0.5% of the total area under agriculture today, it accounts for 37% of all the oils and fats produced in the world and continues, in spite of the Covid-19 calamity, to secure jobs for well over 5 million people globally, most of which are smallholder farmers who depend on this crop for their livelihood.

Is everything perfect and rosy? Absolutely not. The oil palm – like all agricultural crops requires one thing – LAND. And this is where the dilemma arises. In this context, we must acknowledge that the oil palm has contributed towards large tracks of deforestation, even though over the last 25 years it has accounted for less than 5% of global deforestation. Boycotting palm oil and replacing this with an alternate vegetable oils is of course a decision which people or big brands are free to make. However, the price for such action will be high, as it is proven beyond doubt that replacing palm oil with any alternate vegetable oil will result in using up to 10 times more land to produce the same quantity of oil. Even the International Union for the Conservation of nature (IUCN) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have recognised this urging, and support the production and use of sustainable palm oil, thereby preventing greater impacts on the environment, biodiversity, and communities.

The problem with studies like that of Mr Roberto Gatti, is that his pseudoscience has intentionally singled out the oil palm without putting things in perspective, and informing the reader that commodities such as beef, soy, maize, poultry, timber production and more account for over 90% of the world’s deforestation today, and are still in the infancy when it comes to providing consumers with a supply chain that does not come from recently deforested land.

Palm oil, however, has such a scheme in place today, where buyers can be assured of no deforestation, no new peat development, and no exploitation of workers. It is called the Principles and Criteria, which is set by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil or ‘RSPO’ – a standard which with supreme confidence, I can state goes beyond any similar sustainability standard in the world today – even when it comes to olive oil production in Spain, rapeseed production in France, soy production in the US, or canola production in Australia.

The palm oil sector is far from perfect and I will be the first to state that there is still a long road ahead in terms of making sustainable palm oil the norm, but the first steps were taken over 15 years ago to create a multi-stakeholder platform, where buyers and consumers could be assured that the palm oil in the products they use and consume has indeed been grown and sourced sustainably. The aspirations remain high, and today we see the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) and Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification schemes, providing an amazing platform to raise the floor of the “many” instead of just focusing on raising the ceiling of the “few”. 

Together, we will drive the RSPO, MSPO and ISPO standards forward, regardless of the spurious claims by people like Mr Roberto Gatti, and hopefully take inspiration in the words of wisdom from the late Chinese philosopher, Confucius: “It is better to light a candle than to curse darkness”.

Sustainable palm oil is the “light” – it is the future – and any efforts to squash this movement will only move us back into darkness, where we will lose our way, remain silent, and fail to speak up when half-baked truths grab headlines. In the end, this is about taking ownership and holding fast – especially when the headwinds are the fiercest. It is about appreciating that sustainability is a shared problem, requiring individual changes that must start today. This includes you.  

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

Shared-use digital infrastructure, momentum for repositioning of CSR and governance of resources

Jannus TH. Siahaan

Published

on

Apart from being threatened with entering the brink of recession, Indonesia is also facing other problems due to Covid-19. In the education sector, following the health protocols, the learning activities must be carried out online during the pandemic, which further demands the widely available of adequate digital infrastructures.

Indonesia is one of the highest technology users in the education sector in the world. Cambridge International in 2018 released that Indonesian students use the most IT/computer rooms (40%) in schools, and the second-highest use of desktop computers (54%), after the United States.

However, there is only about 40% of teachers who are technology ready. The challenges of online learning are increasing because remote or rural areas are lacking smartphones and internet networks.

Meanwhile, limited fiscal capacity makes it impossible for the government to build digital infrastructure evenly in a short time. Efforts to involve the private sector appear to be an option should the country is unlikely to pursue debt financing in strengthening the public services.

Otherwise, Indonesia is threatened with lost generations in some rural areas or at least suffering from a spike in urban-rural education inequality. The country, therefore, may consider shared use of digital infrastructure between extractive industries and rural communities as an additional alternative scheme in dealing with these limitations.

Shared-use infrastructure

The extractive industry, such as mining and oil and gas, always require digital infrastructure to carry out their complex operations on site. The companies must develop their corporate facilities if they operate in remote and underdeveloped areas.

Therefore, the field offices are usually equipped with excellent internet networks. However, the use of this infrastructure is often subject to the exclusive right of the respective companies as it is a part of business investment.

Shared-use is the notion of allowing other parties such as the communities around the extractive project sites to use the company infrastructure, for instance, internet networks.

The availability of internet networks would somewhat benefit rural communities in facing education challenges during the crisis. Due to that, extractive companies that operate in a rural area might extend their internet facilities to the surrounding villages, to provide digital infrastructure to the communities. It will undoubtedly help children to access education and submit assignments, for instance.

Under strict health protocols, extractive companies can also provide particular spaces completed with computer facilities and internet networks in their office complex open for educational purposes. This program may help children access teaching materials, and teachers may take online classes or training for capacity building purposes.

Most importantly, this shared-use scheme does not require government funds or debt financing. The government also does not need to convince the private sector through expensive and lengthy feasibility studies.

What the country needs is a good sense of crisis, political will from the government, and goodwill from the extractive industries. By adopting this initiative, the state can obtain an additional alternative to provide digital infrastructure in resource-rich but underdeveloped villages.

Straighten the CSR objectives

Shared-use digital infrastructure can be integrated with the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which many have misunderstood so far.

Extractive companies often consider CSR as part of their generosity to the community and the environment. Therefore, the industry repeatedly treats CSR as a residual program to allocate a portion of their profits, not as the primary strategic policy to deal with the other stakeholders.

The stuttering government exacerbated this confusion. The government always treat the companies merely as the agents to exploit natural resources and generating mineral revenue as much as possible. Extractive companies have never been positioned as a strategic partner to share responsibilities in accelerating rural social and economic conditions.

The CSR success criteria are only measured by how much funds the company has spent, not by how practical the implementations are.

Some even treat CSR as a matter of money distribution only to smoothen out the resource exploitation and minimize social pressures. A few companies polished this colonial objective in a more modern term: to win the social license to operate.

As a result, CSR funds tend to target pragmatic programs such as different kinds of donations that lead the societies even to be more dependent on the companies. Instead of delivering benefits to the communities, this approach is, in fact, mostly enjoyed by rent-seekers and group elites.

The International Resource Panel of the UNEP in 2020 has also confirmed the failure of social license to operate approach as it depicts the industry’s pragmatic and often fail to be implemented at the national level.

This primitive approach made extractive investments to work identically to drugs effects: creating community dependency while at the same generate addiction to the resource sectors.

In 2018, mineral dependency, as projected by nominal mining contribution to the GDRP showed many resource-rich regions experience high dependence on non-renewable sector. For example, Mimika Regency (85%), East Kutai (81%), Bengkalis (69%), and Kutai Kertanegara (65%).

Kolaka, one of the most historical nickel producers in the country, experiencing appalling developments when almost 50% of its economy depends on mining, whereas this figure ranged from 8-15% only in 15-20 years ago.

These regions are undoubtedly vulnerable considering the nature of mineral as non-renewable. Extractive sectors eliminated economic independence and put local people exposed to economic turmoil and pressures on global commodity prices.

When the extractive activities halted, which could be anytime, the regional economy would immediately paralyze as a result of losing its primary support in a split second.

Resource governance reform

The extractive industry governance in the country has been misguided. Investments that expected to contribute to the national economy have led to false growth symptoms.

The Covid-19 pandemic should be the momentum to restructure it. It is now the time for industry and government to escape from the trap of past perspectives.

Shared-use of digital technology infrastructure is just an example of how extractive industries can leverage the local communities. On a broader scale, shared-use may target other corporate infrastructure and help the societies to access financial assistance, logistics, and markets for their economic activities. By doing so, the CSR programs could generate more independent with the diversified local economy.

The shared-use is a way to help unlock the social and economic potential to give birth to competitive rural societies and build comparative advantages. This policy can be considered as the trade-off for community acceptance and government permission on extractive project developments.

From the business perspective, shared-use not only can reinforce the company brand and enhance the corporate image but also may strengthen the stakeholder engagement, especially with the community and local government. It is an essential measure to embody of socially responsible investment principle with the ultimate goal of sustainability.

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

How Modern Chinese Political Thoughts Formed Indonesia Towards its Independence

Published

on

Indonesia and China relations have been building each other’s capacities either politically and economically for 70 years despite many challenges and tensions among them during that time. Today, China is one of Indonesia’s strategic partners in economic and infrastructure development. At the same time, China becomes a new economic powerhouse and prominent state actor in world politics.  Behind the rise of China economically and politically in international politics, many modern Chinese thinkers were laying fundamental philosophy which has strengthened morals, value and enlightens ways to build stronger and modern China. Those were, Dr. Sun Yat – sen, Mao Zedong, and Li Dazhao which became the modern foundation of China. They were born and raised in China when ruled by an outdated monarchy, Qing Dynasty, which urgently needs to reform their aspects of government. They realized there should be a new principle to guide China to be a modern nation. The founding fathers of Indonesia also influenced them and made China have a significant contribution indirectly towards Indonesia during the era of the national independence movement (1908 – 1942).

Indonesia and China bilateral relations formally established after the declaration of the founding of the People Republic of China (PRC) on October 1st, 1949, Indonesia recognized the sovereignty and formation of the PRC a few months later on April 13th, 1950. Indonesia became the first Southeast Asian country to established official diplomatic affairs with the PRC and recognized Communist Party of China (CPC) who hold sovereignty of China Mainland with the title “the People’s Republic of China” instead Kuomintang Party which loosed the Civil War (1927 – 1936 and 1946 – 1950) against Communist Party and exiled to Formosa Island (now Taiwan). Indonesia’s recognition of the People’s Republic of China’s sovereignty to ruling China is the beginning of the relations between the two nations. During that time, Soekarno, the first president and The Founding Father of Indonesia has strong relations with China and become the golden era of Indonesia and China political relations[1].

China Contributions Towards Indonesia in Politics: Pan Asianism, Three Principles of People, and Mao Zedong’s Leadership

Relations between Indonesia and China were going well due to Ir. Soekarno, the first President and the founding father of Indonesia, had a positive attitude towards China. During His youth, Soekarno was inspired by Pan – Asianism thought by Li Dazhao,[2] one of the founding members of The Communist Party of China despite Pan – Asianism pioneered by Dr. Sun Yat – Sen.[3] Li Dazhao version of Pan – Asianism was popular among Indonesian young intellectuals because the idea of Li Dazhao to build a “New Greater Asia” against The Japanese version which glorify Japan as the leader of Asia was only to fulfill Japan ambition to conquer all of Asia and creating new kind of Imperialism which most Asian nations already suffered previously by European Powers..After the death of Dr. Sun Yat – sen, Most Indonesians during that era in favor Mao Zedong who was Li Dazhao’s disciples and partner to founding Communist Party of China than Chiang Kai shek as successor of Dr. Sun Yat – sen to spread spirit of Pan – Asianism, This can be proofed on Soekarno’s essay written on Suluh Indonesia Muda in 1928[4] .

Not only Pan – Asianism by Li Dazhao thought, Sun Yat – sen thoughts had influenced many independence movement organizations in Indonesia during Dutch Colonialism regime in Indonesia. Young Soekarno during his college years in Bandung, influenced by both of them after spending time discussing social and political issues during that era with his Chinese descendant colleagues. Soekarno admitted that Pancasila has been inspired by The Three Principles of People thought by Dr, Sun Yat – sen.[5] For example, the first principle, Minzu or People, is commonly preferred as nationalism. Nationalism interpretation according to Sun Yat – sen meant independence from imperialism and colonialism by creating Chinese Nationalism formed by united major races in China such as Han, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetans, and Moslems (Hui and Uyghur)[6]. The idea of Minzu influences the third principle of Pancasila, Persatuan Indonesia or United Indonesia to unify all ethnic and races in Indonesia to form Indonesia Nationalism.

 Then, the second principle Mínquán or democracy, Dr. Sun Yat – sen interpreted that democracy is desirable for China because it the highest form of political evolution and attempted to reinforce people aspirations and assist it into the achievement of complete justice. This is similar to the fourth principle of Pancasila which emphasizes the government of, from, by the people. And the last, the third principle, Minshēng or People Livelihood interpreted as collaboration and partnership between people and the government to achieve maximum social justice with restraining capitalist power through taxation, regulation of capital, and land equalization to avoid the emergence of modern labour exploitation. This has similar meaning with the fifth principle of Pancasila, Fair social justice for all Indonesians. With these similarities of definition and ideas between The Three Principles and three of five principles of Pancasila, it’s clear that Pancasila was influenced by The Three Principles of People by Dr. Sun Yat – Sen which has become the modern foundation of China until now.    

After the end of the Chinese Civil War, China built its relations with Indonesia officially in 1953. During that time, Soekarno was impressed by Mao Zedong’s leadership based on His political ideas thought, New Democracy. Mao Zedong’s leadership brought China into an industrialized nation and the fastest economic growth during that time has inspired Ir. Soekarno adopted it during his presidency. After His state visit to China in 1956, Soekarno adopted China’s political systems during Mao’s leadership as a role model to build and change the foundation of political systems in Indonesia after parliamentary democracy failed to create a new constitution. Soekarno formed a centralized government in which he as a leader has a central role to maintain governance of Indonesia. Soekarno viewed Mao Zedong’s thoughts, New Democracy as the successor of The Three Principles of People by Dr. Sun Yat – sen because of New Democracy giving progressive views towards peasants and poor people as were the majority of the population in Indonesia during that time.

For example why New Democracy is successor of The Three Principles of People, Mao perspective on democracy (Mínquán) is a form of government systems should be ruled and organized by peasants or proletariat through people congresses from national level down to the provincial, county, district and township which their member consist of proper representative for each revolutionary class according to its status in the state, a proper expression of the people’s will, a proper direction for revolutionary struggles and a proper manifestation of the spirit of New Democracy elected their own government bodies, then a system of really universal and equal suffrage, irrespective of sex, creed, property or education, must be introduced[7]. Such is the system of A democratic centralism or Social Democratic to achieve complete social justice, Soekarno affirmed this through his speech at Indonesia National Party Conference on July 3th, 1957. Soekarno believed that Indonesia should adopt this Social Democratic system which different than in the western hemisphere to achieve complete social justice[8]. This Soekarno way to elaborate his leadership style with Mao Zedong thought, New Democracy to validify made Soekarno have emotional tied with Mao Zedong and relations between Indonesia and China getting along together well in politically.

Conclusion

Contemporary China today has been formed by their intellectuals and political leaders to form new political and philosophical foundations to replace feudalistic and outdated systems by the previous Qing Dynasty which failed to protect China from imperialist powers and develop China economy during that time despite the strategic location of China and the abundance of natural resources. The early revolution called Xinhai Revolution (1911 – 1912) was initiated by Dr. Sun Yat – sen based on The Three Principles of The People to create democratic and unified the five races in China. Before the creation of The Three Principles of The People, Dr. Sun Yat-sen pioneered Pan-Asianism to invite all Asian people to rise against western imperialist powers after the victory of Japanese Navy against the Imperial Russian Navy in The Battle of Tsushima (1905). However, Japan corrupted the meaning of Pan – Asianism to rationalized Japanese military aggression and political absortion to justify Japan as a leader of Asia. Li Dazhao offered Pan – Asianism which means all Asian Nations should rise against any imperialist power including Japan and unite to achieve equal union of all Asian Nations.

Pan Asianism influenced all of many independence movements in many regions in Asia which had been colonized for a long time by western or European powers, including Indonesia which controlled Dutch Colonial Government during that time to rise up against colonial or imperialist powers. Then, The Three Principles of The People has influenced Soekarno as the founding father of Indonesia to create a philosophical foundation for Indonesia. The similarity of the diversity of people and historical condition between China and Indonesia is the reason why Soekarno was inspired by The Three Principles of The People to create Pancasila as the philosophical foundation of Indonesia until today.

After the independence, Soekarno as the first President of Indonesia impressed by the rapid development of China during the Mao era thanks to his leadership style. Mao Zedong leadership based on his political idea, On New Democracy to form a centralized government to manage all aspects in politics and economy to achieve maximum and equal social justice among the people. Mao’s leadership based on On New Democracy adopted by Soekarno to boost Indonesia’s development after the independence. The conclusion of this paper is China had been contributed Indonesia politically during Pre-Independence Era or The National Revival / Independence Movement Era (1908 – 1942) through Pan – Asianism by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, then revised by Li Dazhao to reinforce the sense of nationalism among Indonesian Intellectuals, and The Three Principle of The People by Dr. Sun Yat-sen to create Philosophical foundation of modern Indonesia. Then, Mao Zedong’s leadership based on On New Democracy to boost Indonesia development after the independence which adopted by Soekarno.           


[1] Liu, H. “China and the Shaping of Indonesia, 1949-1965” (2011) p. 233 – 236

[2] Rudi,H. .(2011, May 29th). “Bung Karno dan Pan Asianisme.” Berdikari Online. Web. Accessed from http://www.berdikarionline.com/bung-karno-dan-pan-asianisme/

[3] Dahm, B, “Soekarno and The Struggle for Indonesian Independence” (1970), p 115 -116 

[4] Sukarno, “Indonesianism and Pan Asianism”, p. 67. 16

[5] Sukarno, “The Birth of Pantja Sila” (1945), in Pantja Sila: The Basis of the State of the Republic of Indonesia (Jakarta: Department of Information, P. 196

[6] Bedeski, Robert E. “The Concept of the State: Sun Yat-sen and Mao Tse-tung.” The China Quarterly, no. 70 (1977): 338-54. Accessed January 31, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/652620.

[7] Mao Tse-tung, ”On New Democracy.” SW, Voll. II, P. 347. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm 

[8] Utomo, Satriono Priyo. “Indonesia, Tiongkok dan Komunisme, 1949-1965.” Indonesian Perspective 2.1 (2017): P. 66

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

East Asia52 mins ago

The Chinese Agitprop: Disinformation, Propaganda and Payrolls

“If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it and you will even believe it yourself”. -Joseph Goebbels,...

Newsdesk3 hours ago

ILO: Developing countries should invest US$1.2 trillion to guarantee basic social protection

To guarantee at least basic income security and access to essential health care for all in 2020 alone, developing countries...

International Law5 hours ago

The UN reforms are required to make it functional

Today, the world we live in has become more unpredictable, insecure, and exposed to more vulnerability. Geopolitics is changing rapidly,...

Reports7 hours ago

Building confidence crucial amid an uncertain economic recovery

With the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to threaten jobs, businesses and the health and well-being of millions amid exceptional uncertainty, building...

Environment8 hours ago

No More Business as Usual: Green Deal Needed in Europe’s Recovery

Chief executive officers (CEOs) and senior representatives of around 30 European companies expressed today their support for the European Green...

Russia9 hours ago

Forgiving Old Debts: Russia’s Diplomatic Maneuver

With economies experiencing contractions across the globe and with governments in the third world most vulnerable, discussions of debt relief...

Economy11 hours ago

How U.S.’s Response to Covid-19 Could Precipitate 2nd Great Depression

On March 10th of this year, there were 290 daily new U.S. cases of Covid-19 (coronavirus-19). On March 13th, U.S....

Trending