Connect with us

Southeast Asia

Why Australia should abandon its Russian paranoia

Published

on

Russia and Australia should be partners in the Asia-Pacific. Instead Canberra seems perennially paranoid about the Russian threat. This paranoia is nearly as old as Australia.

In the 1850s at the height of the Crimean War – fought primarily between Russia and Britain –Australia was gripped by paranoia of a Russian invasion. As rumours spread that the Russian Navy had invaded the port of Melbourne, the British colony started building coastal fortifications to repulse the invasion – that never came.

Russophobia is back in fashion in Australia. It almost reached a crisis point at the December 2014 G-20 summit in Brisbane when the Tony Abbott government said it wanted to ban Russia. The Australians backed off after India and China reminded them the G-20 wasn’t a private western club.

Abbott then said he would “shirtfront” Vladimir Putin at the summit. Shirtfront is defined in Australian Football Rules as an aggressive front-on body check challenge. The irony is that had Abbott implemented his threat, it would have been Putin the judoka who would have come out on top.

At any rate, instead of wasting words Putin despatched a Russian Navy flotilla towards Australia ahead of his visit.

It is clear that Australia’s political leadership doesn’t tend to view Russia favourably. Russia has returned the favour by blocking Australia’s involvement in the Syrian peace negotiations.

Australia’s place in the world

Australians are an easy going people, but their problem is the country’s leadership which is way over its head in events it can’t begin to understand. This was best illustrated by author David Horne, who wrote in 1960, “Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck.”

Indeed, the Australian political class tends to react to the rapidly transforming world order around them with hysteria rather than level headed thinking.

Take the sudden end of the Cold War. Australians were initially thrilled with the unexpected decline of Russia’s global power, which had left the West supreme. But the euphoria didn’t last long because the rise of China and India among other countries plus the re-rise of Russia checked the West’s expansion. Australians watched with dismay the world go multi-polar and the western economies crumble in slow motion.

For a country of just 23 million, Australia has outsize global ambitions. Despite the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force can barely find enough pilots to man its existing squadrons, Australian leaders like to think of their country as integral to the maintenance of the West’s hegemony. Over the decades, they have blindly followed the US and have been loyal foot soldiers in a string of American-inspired conflicts around the world — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. Plus, with old co-hegemon Britain’s defence forces shrinking because of budget cuts, Australia is keen to take over the role of America’s closest ally.

Russian bogey

America’s adversary is, therefore, Australia’s adversary. During the 2008 Georgian War, the Christian fundamentalist Prime Minister Kevin Rudd threatened to cancel a 2007 agreement on the sale of uranium to Russia. The Rudd government’s argument was specious – that Moscow would use Australian uranium to make nuclear bombs.

Only someone belonging to the Flat Earth Society would have made such an argument. Russia not only had enough nuclear warheads to destroy all NATO countries, but it had thousands more in cold storage. In fact, the Russian government is in the process of dismantling these stored warheads as a security measure.

Again, during the Ukraine crisis, Australia joined the US and Europe and imposed sanctions on Russia. This included asset freezes and travel bans on 50 individuals and 11 Russian companies, including SMP Bank, Bank Rossiya and the Volga Group.

However, while Russia is targeted for acting entirely within its area of influence, Australia looks the other way when it comes to China. According to Saleem H. Ali, Chair and Professor of the University of Queensland, “the moral outrage being exhibited on the matter needs to be tempered with some broader perspective on what gets tolerated in the annals of Australian foreign policy”.

Ali explains: “Ultimately, nation states make decisions on relations based on a balance of economic expediency and national security. Australia’s ambivalent relationship with China is perhaps the most direct comparison in this regard. Marginalization of dissent, lack of democratic institutions and regional hegemonic tendencies are appropriately tolerated by Australia as well as many other western nations because the broader importance of engaging with China trumps such matters. A similar modicum of care is in order when dealing with Russia.”

Australia’s fears

To be sure, Australia has legitimate security concerns. Most of its limited population is concentrated on the east coast while the sparsely populated north and west are closer to crowded Indonesia than Sydney or Melbourne.

Fuelling Australia’s paranoia are other strategic developments in the region. China’s naval expansion is a big worry for the Australian defence forces and curiously the Australian political and military leadership at one time viewed India as a threat. The Indian Navy’s current high-octane growth will no doubt be in Canberra’s calculations. Add in the fact that Indonesia is re-arming – with the deadly Sukhoi Su-35 aircraft – right next door, and you can see why the Australians are getting jittery. (It is worth mentioning that during World War II, more bombs were dropped on Darwin than were used in the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, during 1942-43 the Japanese launched as many 100 raids on Australia.)

In this backdrop, the Australians feel only an alliance with Anglo cousin America can ensure their security.

However, Australia needs to relax about Russia. It’s been over 200 years since the invasion scare and there’s still no sight of a Russian fleet. The reality is that Moscow has never had designs on Australia. Even during the height of the Cold War, Russians were content with a minor presence in the region. It was almost a career dead end for a Russian diplomat posted to Australia.

Being small and a lightweight in diplomacy, Australia could benefit from Russia’s friendship. As Ali says, “For all his many dismissals of smaller states like Australia, President Putin made a gesture in 2007 to visit Australia on an extended visit for the APEC summit, making him the first serving Russian president to give the country a measure of diplomatic respect.”

On the flip side, Moscow can squeeze Australia where it hurts as it showed by elbowing out Canberra from the Syrian negotiations. Both countries are commodities exporters to China but it is Russia that holds more leverage with Beijing. Describing Australia as a “Paper Cat”, a Chinese newspaper says Beijing should attack Australia if it enters the borders of the South China Sea.

Australia is currently waiting for the Americans to supply the F-35 stealth fighter to replace its aging F-18 jets. However, Russia is supplying the stealth-killer Su-35 to Indonesia and China. If Australia had any friends in Moscow, these sales may have been blocked or delayed just like Russia had delayed the sale of the S-300 anti-missile system to Iran and Syria partly because of Israeli pressure. Once bitter Cold War adversaries, Tel Aviv and Moscow enjoy an easy relationship today. There is no reason why Russia-Australia relations cannot be on the mend.

Continue Reading
Comments

Southeast Asia

How International Law Sight Towards the Coup D’etat Process in Myanmar

Published

on

The Union of Myanmar is a sovereign state, where the Capital City is located in Yangon before moved to the Naypyidaw on November 7th, 2005 by the action of Junta’s Military Governance. As known, in the historical background, Myanmar is a country that has been through the grip of a military dictatorship for over six-decade.

Previously, in the brief story of Myanmar, in the 19th century, (in the Konbaung Dynasty),Burma took control of an area that includes a modern territory of Myanmar, also briefly controlled Manipur and Assam. In that era, Britain dominated Myanmar after three of the Anglo-Burma War and thus this country was colonialized by the British. Myanmar got independence in 1948 to be a democratic state but was being coup d’etat by the military in 1962, which General Ne Win wrested the governmental mandate from Prime Minister U Nu, who was in power since 1948. At that phase, this country got passeda tough regime, which gave an unsavory impact, particularly in economic aspect and various inhuman acts, such as against ethnic, where United Nations and many International Organization always reported a significant case about human rights there. In 2011, Junta’s Military was dissolved after the elections in 2010, but this country is still can not refuse all the criticism in the previous measures of the old government to the towards minority ethnic.

In the general elections 2015, Aung San Suu Kyi Party is the winner of the majority parliament, where this is can be the historical point to Myanmar to get a democratization opportunity. Based on the general election result in November 2020, Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy Party (NLD) won 396 of the 476 parliamentary seats, while the military-backed opposition, Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), only got 33 seats. However, Myanmar’s Military is still the major force in politic, since The 2008 Constitution (which the controversial rules) is granted the military rights to control the government and that is constitution also reward the Tatmadaw Military to get 25% parliamentary seats in the important aspect in the national security sector, which includes the ministries of interior, border, and security affairs. Specifically, even the NLD dominated parliamentary seats, the military stronghold still controls the government. Hence, the military insists refused the result of the election, and the Press Secretary of the USDP, Doctor Nandar Hla Myint believes there is a fraud of the mass elections, and if this case is not handled in advance, this could make damage or political chaos. The General of Military, Min Aung Hlaing also stipulated, the evaluation of elections is indeed a non-fair and dishonest practice. Thus, before the trial was open by the parliament, the coup d’etat happened by the military. The NLD party led by Aung San Suu Kyi began to gain a political arena until finally today Myanmar falls into the hands of the generals again.

This is the second time the military success to dethrone through democratic governance, previously the coup d’etat itself happened many time, such in 1988 when General Ne Win pension from the military and replaced by Sein Lwin who is well known as a person that brutally to the Pro-Democratic, thus he has been beaten back by the mass action, and Doctor Maung Maung replaced him at that time. But not long after that, there is a coup d’etat internal by the military which takes over by General Jaw Maung who has also established a new party, named State Law and Order Restoration Committee (SLORC).

Various international sanctions have been imposed on Myanmar. In 1996, the European Union decided to ban arms sales to Myanmar. The United States has also imposed sanctions since 1988, prohibiting new investment by its citizens in Myanmar in 1997, then closing the gap for imports of products from Myanmar in 2003.

Regarding the actions by Myanmar’s Military, several International Community has constituted Myanmar as a breach of international values and some country has banned a few aspects to Myanmar as mention above, however, how the International Law views it?

International Law Perspective

Based on the UN Charter views, under Article 1 (1) affirmed, should take effective measures to prevent and thrown a threat of peace where have a correlate with Resolutions of the UN Security Council which called upon States not to recognize a certain authority or even decided that the Member States should refrain from recognizing a certain authority would hardly have been necessary if recognition had no legal meaning. It concludes, the prohibition to recognize new governance from the coup d’etat result, because in case of the legal commitment to the democratic government of a State, the other States only may continue to recognize the exiled democratically elected government a revival as a measure for the protection and consolidation of democratic government. Other than that, as examine in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States is has to fulfill 4 qualifications, a permanent population; a defined territory; government; the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. In this convention sight, especially in Government point, it complies with the sovereign government that holds the highest power and is formed to carry out the running of the government of a country. As known, Myanmar is currently being a democratic state as the result in the general elections 2020 where Aung San Suu Kyi has won the vote, thus the state should honor and deem in this democratic regime. However, the military is trying to take over the governance back, this form of breaches the democratic rules, wherein this system did not recognize dualism of leadership, as did by Myanmar’s military. Even Myanmar did not sign and ratified this convention, it still ought to be legally binding, since this is recognized by civilized nations as one of the basic international agreements in international law.

Accordance to the coup of Myanmar’s military is not in line with ASEAN’s Charter which contains many democracy references, wherein in the preamble conduct, “Adhering to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance.” Especially Article 1 lists “strengthening democracy, enhancing good governance and the rule of law as among ASEAN’s main purposes.” And also in Article 2 on the organization’s “principles” includes “adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the principles of democracy and constitutional government.” Therefore, Myanmar as a member of this charter since 1997, ought to uphold the purpose of this agreement.

Subsequently, the Coup D’etat action by Myanmar’s military is a tantamount form of treason towards a democratic system, which the legitimate government is defeated by the military without a concrete reason, lack of evidence, and unclear accusations, that is just a prejudice of fraud in the elections by Myanmar’s military to the Aung San Suu Kyi party, and most United Nations officials and diplomats voiced alarm at the February 1, 2021 coup and the brutal response to some of the massive protests unsteady Myanmar because fails to comply with the basic rule of law principles.

Myanmar’s Military action is also indeed not in compliance with customary international law that honor by many countries, where refuse to recognize any government set up under these circumstances or any Government elected as a result of these illegal actions. For instance, in some state practices, firstly, there is a Canada action that declares all the Organizations of the American State (OAS) won’t recognize any governance that is made by the coup d’etat, which is Norway to the Haiti Government. Secondly, British action that did not recognize the governance in Cambodia since the genocidal Pol Pot Government of Cambodia and the Rawlings Government in Ghana by the public and the media, which considered formal recognition as tantamount to moral approval. Thirdly, the Belgian Government refused to recognize Mao Tse-tung instead of Tshiang Kai-shek as the Government of the Chinese State, and so on. Since based on both principle and State practice of recognition of the government in International Law.

Protest also provoke by the International Community, Britain, and the European Union that refuse those action by did not recognize the new governance, because the way the military did is indeed unprocedural, as affirmed in Tobar and Wilson doctrines of formally denying recognition to governments coming to power by unconstitutional means and combining them with the element of continued recognition of the democratically elected governments forced into exile by coup d’état or revolution. Strengthen in Stimson Doctrine, examine about the condemn all recognition of new situations by third States is an important mechanism in international relations, and this doctrine was the start of a process of customary international law formation for a rule prohibiting recognition of situations resulting from unlawful acts that in line with the international legal order, as a coup of Myanmar’s Military did to the Aung San Suu Kyi governance.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) role as an international organization has presented in the ASEAN election of Myanmar’s general election in 2020 as a form of election observation that is chasing to get an additional handling a political crisis without a coercive way by ASEAN, which should be more legitimacy to the election process, and this might dilute the Tatmadaw prejudice to justify the coup. Moreover, ASEAN responded to this current issues that represent by Brunei as an ASEAN’s rotating chairmanship stipulated, “dialogue, reconciliation and the return to normalcy” in Myanmar, that statement is indeed a democratic principle in the ASEAN Charter since it implied with a non-coercive form of intervention to the internal affairs that honor by each party. Consider sanctions of a breach of this charter is nonexistent, thus it’s only come with the increased statements of concern regarding Myanmar’s internal affairs from each member in the recent years to condemn the coercive instrument. Even if, there is no significant settlement to Myanmar’s coup, this organization still tried to stands to learn important lessons from its actions for developing regional crisis management and prevention mechanisms to fulfill ASEAN’s aspirations of strengthening democracy.

For the foregoing reason, Myanmar’s Military action is indeed opposed by many sources in International Law, contemplate the democracy is the government of the people and for the people (Hans Kelsen), hence in the democratic system is really honor the freedom of speech and the recognition of fair government, and due to Myanmar’s Military measures to NDL Party that led by Aung San Suu Kyi it ought void because no relevant all on times.

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

The Mosaic of Defiance: Is Resumption of Democracy Enough?

Published

on

photo: Wikipedia

Horns blaring, roads crowded and pots clattering in twilight; this is the new reality of Myanmar. A reality that no one envisaged but developed after years, decades even, of pent-up frustration, anger and subjugation. The recent military coup launched by General Min Aung Hlaing has sketched a passage for the citizenry to break away from the shackled history of the country, to stand beside the leader they admired for decades. Yet, as streets are flooding in protest, resignations being flaunted to register defiance and graffiti colouring the walls in pure rendition of support to the dethroned government, the question stems: Is the government even a true manifestation of democracy? And is reconciliation of the elected government actually what the country needs?Ever so desperately!

After ruling the state for almost six decades, the military, notoriously known as ‘Tatmadaw’ has clinched its talons again after a brief tryst with what apparently was hailed as ‘Democracy’. Wading through the years of tyranny, the public aficionado rose up in the face of Aung San Suu Kyi. Her legacy trailed from her martyred father, Aung San, who etched his name in history through his remarkable struggle towards the independence of Myanmar. Her tireless effort spieled her devotion to the cause of ordinary people, the people tormented at the hands of the ruthless military. Her house arrest post-election debacle in 1990 raved the supporters and her party: National League of Democracy (NLD), swiftly transcended from being an underdog to the archival of Junta for decades to follow.

Her acquittal followed by her landslide victory of the elections marked rejoice as both the military receded and the people-favourite Suu Kyi rose up the ranks to harness the nascent democracy of Myanmar. Yet, backstab doesn’t nearly describe the treatment reciprocated by the venerated figure in power now. The pleas and cries of the oppressed remained unheeded as the hapless witnessed the desecration of humanity whilst Suu Kyi greeted the military leaders with harmony. While NLD revelled in power and control, the tyranny of the military never receded,but only intensified. The raping spree, the economic disparity, the faltering education, the barbed freedom of speech and expression. The unfathomable reality in what was envisioned to be a paradise, a liberation from the draconian rule only proved to be much worse.

Another subsequent landslide victory to NLD was often confused with the popularity and admiration. Suu Kyi lost the reverence years ago when she monopolised the sentiments of the victims. The superficial democracy functioned under the Military chartered constitution. The democratic institutions functioned but with a quarter-quota to the military totalitarians. The world looked at the pretence of a prospering and progressing Myanmar yet it rotted from within. The world questioned the military brutality against Rohingya and Suu Kyi blatantly denied each crime committed; crimes riddled with pain of rape and pillage spanning decades and well into her tenure. More than a million innocent Muslims displaced from their own country as Suu Kyi acquiesced the massacre as if she never truly believed in their innocence. As if she always stood parallel to the totalitarian narrative regarding Rohingya;always visioned them as ‘Terrorists’ and ‘Invaders of the Nation”.

Victory bestowed on NLD yet again however, the minorities were ridiculed and barred from voting. The democracy that never really evaded the drapes of the fascist regime since 2011, started to unknot from the military’s interest. Allegations of mass rigging were chanted yet the disenfranchisement of the minorities like Rohingya was never the part of the picture. The sudden coup took the world by surprise as Suu Kyi, along with the top tier of NLD, descended back to the era of house arrest under falsified charges. The patriots took charge of the streets and the faltering effort to defy the military is in effect ever since.

The schematic arrangement of the military, however, was never questioned by the proponents of peace and tranquillity today. When the minorities suffocated under the guise of democracy, no protests ensued in support. When their celebrated leader joined hands with the tyrants and trampled all over the years and years of struggle and sacrifice of the oppressed, no defiance surfaced. Instead, term after term, Suu Kyi grabbed a majority mandate while the cruelty continued at the same rampant pace either in the name of ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ or ‘National Interest’. Now, the country is witnessing the first peace protest campaign against the military, identical to the like of Thailand and Hong Kong: demanding democracy. No sane mind reflects and questions the tents of democracy itself. The world pushed sanctions in hopes of the revival of the displaced government yet no one questions the authenticity of the rule. The military promises democracy and protestors naively feel vindicated. All that has unfolded and even what is about to transpire is perplexing. What is coherent is the fact that the country that lacks the rudimentary concept of democracy might be able to win back the government but it would never witness the light of true freedom.

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

Soekarno & Khrushchev in Building Indonesian-Soviet Relations

Published

on

caption photo: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and Indonesian President Soekarno Share a Cigarette, in a banquet at the Tampaksiring Palace, Bali. 1960 (Life/John Dominis)

In the midst of the Cold War, Indonesia emerged as the “Asian Tiger”. First President Soekarno’s charisma had turned the world’s attention to the recent independent archipelago nation. How did Indonesia’s  first president succeed in winning over the Soviet Union? Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union described his impressions of Indonesia and Soekarno in his memoirs. (Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Statesman, 1953-1964)

As a newly independent country, Indonesia was certainly not an attractive country for the Soviets who had become one of the largest powers in the world. In his memoirs, he wrote that under Stalin, the Soviet Union did not have any relationship with Indonesia. In fact, he had never even heard Stalin talk about  Soekarno nor Indonesia.

Sukarno organized the Asian – Africa Conference which was held on April 18th to April 24,1955, with the goal of uniting the developing Asian and African nations into the Non-Aligned Movement to counter balance both the United States and the Soviet Union.

Delegates from twenty-nine countries in Asia and Africa convened in Bandung to discuss the common challenges their nations faced in navigating a postcolonial world, had attracted world attention. Since then, Indonesia and particularly President Soekarno was widely discussed and made the headlines in world news- papers, including the Soviet Union. Slowly but surely, Indonesia managed to attract the attention of the Soviet central government.

Indonesia further attracted attention because of being a large country with a population of more than 100 million (in the 1950s), is also a multiethnic country. That interest increased the relationship between the Soviet Union and Indonesia. The first diplomatic relations between Indonesia and the Soviet Union were finally established, while still under Stalin’s leadership.

The following year, in 1956, President Soekarno finally made an official visit to the Soviet Union. Soekarno was greeted with great respect like any other world leader. Khruschev also wrote in his memoir that the Indonesian President an educated and intelligent figure. “Soekarno has both. He is educated and also smart.” Stressed Khruschev in his memoirs.

A visit that made a very good impression in the eyes of the Soviet leader at that time, during which Soekarno expressed his principles and policies during his time as president, to be neutral and not take sides with any country (Non- Aligned).

Even this visit was the beginning of the establishment of a partnership between the two countries. This relationship continued until in the early 1960s, Soekarno invited a delegation of the Soviet government to visit Indonesia.

Khruschev immediately accepted the invitation and said he was very happy with the invitation. Khruschev, leading the delegation consisted of several members of the Central Committee and was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrei Gromyko.

A warm welcome was also given to the Soviet delegation, where people  flocked out to crowd the streets and wave their hands. This made a deep impression on the delegation who came by saying that “Indonesia is a very beautiful country, Indonesia made a very powerful impression on us with its natural beauty and hu- man warmth. The tropical heat, on the other hand, had a stupefying effect on us”.

This good relationship made the Soviet Union and Indonesia cooperate in several  fields. The assistance included loans from the Soviet Union for the mining of tin and other valuables that were abundant on Indonesian soil, including the provision of tools and equipment.

Significant assistance was also provided in the context of the construction of the main football Stadium Gelora Bung Karno in Senayan, Jakarta, where the Soviets provided a soft loan to the Indonesian government worth of US $ 12.5 million. The construction of this stadium took about 2 years, starting on February 8, 1960, and was officially opened on July 21, 1962, as a complete facility and infrastructure for the 1962 Asian Games.

Currently, Gelora Bung Karno has become an icon of the Indonesian nation, the stadium, which initially could accommodate 110.000 spectators, has often been the venue of several important national events. We are certainly very proud that Indonesia was once one of the ‘great power’ countries in the world, and of course one day, Indonesia will be victorious again and be equal with other developed countries.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Reports28 mins ago

Sea transport is primary route for counterfeiters

More than half of the total value of counterfeit goods seized around the world are shipped by sea, according to...

Development2 hours ago

Lao PDR: New Project to Protect Landscapes and Enhance Livelihoods

The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors today approved a US$57 million project to help Lao PDR promote sustainable forest...

Eastern Europe4 hours ago

As Georgians Fight Each Other, Russia Gleefully Looks On

Earlier today, the leader of Georgia’s major opposition party – United National Movement (UNM) – was detained at his party...

Energy News7 hours ago

Policy Measures to Advance Jordan’s Transition to Renewables

A new report published today by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has identified a series of policy measures that...

Human Rights8 hours ago

‘No place’ for coups in today’s world

On the opening day of a new UN Human Rights Council session on Monday, UN Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated his “full support to the people of Myanmar”, three weeks after the...

Americas10 hours ago

Possible Directions for U.S. Policies in the Biden Era

Authors: Chan Kung and He Jun On January 20, 2021, a new page will be turned in the history of...

Economy12 hours ago

EEU: An Irrelevant Anachronism or a Growing Digital Enterprise Dynamo?

A commonwealth of interests The search for a stable Eurasia depended on the effectiveness of a durable system for the...

Trending