Connect with us

Southeast Asia

ASEAN in the Emerging Indo-Pacific

Published

on

In 2017, the concept of the Indo-Pacific, after it was included in the discourse of regional issues by US representatives, was unofficially framed as the region’s main discussion issue for the coming years. Having appeared in the Indian analytical magazine in 2007, the term “Indo-Pacific” for a long time only remained the subject of scientific discussions and entered the political vocabulary of only a couple of countries of the future region: India, Japan and Australia. At the initial stage of the emergence of the concept, ASEAN countries experienced serious problems of internal contradictions and really could not join the formation of the concept among the first. In 2013, Indonesia, as a country – one of the leaders in the region, presented an “aseanocentric” vision of the concept of “Indo-Pacific.” The proposal was to create a regional organization that includes all the basic principles of ASEAN (“integration”, “mutual understanding”), based on a symbiosis of two existing institutions: the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the Association of East Asian Summit Members. It is not surprising that the proposed construct retained the leading role for ASEAN countries in future decisions of the organization, since it was actually proposed to “bring to a common denominator the heterogeneous and diverse ASEAN external partners» [2]. At the stage of presentation, the path of the “aseanocentric” concept stopped. The main ideas, agendas presented by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, Marty Metalegawa, were not included in the discourse-discussion of the concept in the coming years.

If we give an analytical assessment of the approach proposed by Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, we can note its all-inclusive nature, where there were no restrictions on the entry of actors (the most striking example is the dualism of the China-USA pair), which at the time of the promotion of the initiative, which of course was perceived by most countries as anti-Chinese, the idea of forming a future concept fell somewhat out of the general trend of the movement of thought. Considering that in the years following the presentation of the concept by Indonesia, the confrontation between the USA and China only increased, it is not surprising that the «aseanocentric» version of Indo-Pacific seemed inappropriate to potential participants in the future concept. At the same time, the lack of economic opportunities for ASEAN countries to advance the initiative was superimposed on this.

Difficulties in embedding discourse

It is obvious that after the rejection of the “aseanocentric” initiative, the ASEAN countries found themselves in a dependent position on the will of other participants in the dialogue on the formation of a future concept. The absence of the agenda of the Southeast Asian countries in the formation of the future Indo-Pacific concept on the following provisions, which will negatively affect the position of ASEAN countries in the creation of Indo-Pacific.

As early as 2017, ASEAN countries were turned off from a direct discussion of the concept of “Indo-Pacific.” So during the four-way dialogue on the security of the region, among whose participants were the USA, Japan, Australia, India, not a single Southeast Asian country was invited. The lines on the application of the principle of “ASEAN centrality” in shaping the future concept in the final communiqué following the discussion looked all the more ironic [3]. The very format of the meeting, where in the presence of a significant number of regional, time-tested institutions, including ASEAN, this institution was chosen as the venue for the meeting (the four-way dialogue on security cannot be considered one of the main regional venues in the region), which did not include Southeast Asian countries, ASEAN’s potential reduced role in Indo-Pacific.

However, when discussing the non-inclusion of ASEAN countries in the process of adopting the concept of future Indo-Pacific, it is worthwhile to dwell in detail on the chronic internal problems of the organization, especially with regard to the process of developing a unified, consolidated position on any issue. The decision-making problem has already led to the “informality” being proclaimed as the main principle of ASEAN organization, since there are few official situations where the parties could agree on problematic issues (from unsuccessful examples: ASEAN position on SCS, standardization of tariff restrictions) [4]. As part of the ASEAN internal affairs, this lack of maturity is explained not only by the system of consensus decision-making established in the organization (when one abstaining is enough for the decision not to be made), but also by the constant desire for political diversification of previous agreements (example: despite the fact that ASEAN has been a long time trying to build a common market, most of the organization’s states are openly oriented to third markets, which diverges from official political statements and blocks promotion proposed “aseanocentric” initiatives) [5].

A very sensitive internal moment for the ASEAN countries in building the concept of Indo-Pacific is the orientation of the initiating countries to the principles of “freedom” and “democracy” in internal political life, which share the concept of countries. This is a very well-founded fear, since most of the ASEAN countries can be classified as hybrid regimes that combine the practice of democracy and authoritarianism. ASEAN countries that are historically sensitive (“postcolonial syndrome”) to any attempt to influence sovereignty (which at one time even made them completely abandon the idea of creating supranational political institutions) are absolutely reasonably alarmed by the potential changes in the internal political structure that the design of the Indo-Pacific concept can bring.

The main foreign policy concern of the ASEAN countries, in connection with their participation in the development of the Indo-Pacific concept, is the potential possibility of losing China, which is the region’s main economic partner. In the presentation of the main initiators of the USA and Australia, carries a clear anti-Chinese message, which automatically puts all countries that have joined this interpretation of the concept into a situation of potential deterioration in relations with Beijing in the event of a diplomatic dialogue-explanation.

Second ASEAN Vision of Indo-Pacific

Obviously, realizing the danger of developing the final concept of Indo-Pacific without them, ASEAN in 2018-2019 stepped up in terms of developing a unified position of the organization on this issue.

The first attempt to present the “aseanocentric” vision of Indo-Pacific took place at the 13th EAC Summit in Singapore in November 2018. Recognizing the vacuum created by ASEAN’s almost 5-year-old lack of work on the Indo-Pacific concept, the proposal put forward was the most general and included some points that the concept initiators had already tuned for in 2017, namely: “mutual trust and respect”, “centrality ASEAN”,“inclusiveness”,“transparency” [6]. Thus, ASEAN tried to competently enter into the discourse of the formation of the concept by stating some statements that would not cause disagreement between the initiators of the concept. However, in making such a vague proposal, the ASEAN countries once again demonstrated their inability to declare their own position and draw up the boundaries of problematic issues. In the academic community, such an ASEAN speech raised many questions and led to the formation of a public conviction about the transformation of the Southeast Asian region into an arena of rivalry between the great powers [7].

Understanding that specifics cannot be avoided, ASEAN countries at a meeting of senior officials in Thailand in March 2019 announced the creation of a preliminary document of the ASEAN common position regarding the concept of Indo-Pacific. On June 23, 2019, this vision was published.

In its understanding of a future initiative, ASEAN builds on the geographical side of the issue. According to this approach, the region of Southeast Asia is the central place in concept, therefore it is he who should play a key place in the economic and political processes of the future concept. The attempt to declare precisely the message of the “centrality of the region” is expressed by unfounded fears of the potential fragmentation of the region on the issue of Indo-Pacific (which the USA has been actively claiming with the intensification of relations with Vietnam since 2010). It is worthwhile to understand that if ASEAN is fragmented for many years, it will lose political sovereignty as an organization, and for many years it will be in a political crisis. Therefore, the question of finding a common foundation for the Southeast Asian countries is one of the key issues in presenting their vision of the Indo-Pacific initiative.

Another distinguishing feature of ASEAN, which can be seen in the presentation of the initiative, is the absence of a statement on the creation of new institutions. According to the organization, the existing institutions of the region can cope with this: the East Asian Summit (EAC), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN +8 Ministerial Conference of Defense (ASEAN CMO + 8). Reliance on the EAC Institute can be explained from the standpoint of ASEAN’s reluctance to oppose China and Russia (to a lesser extent) to the organization’s desire to take part in the Indo-Pacific concept. Given ASEAN’s position on the “inclusive nature” of their vision, the inclusion of this countries in the list of potential foundations of the future concept does not look directly hostile to the countries initiating the anti-Chinese concept format (USA, Australia).

The main benefits for ASEAN, according to their presentation, are the region’s entry into a more intensive economic flow by participating in programs to attract foreign investment, intensifying existing projects and increasing the level of integration with world economic organizations [8] (which sometimes bypass Southeast Asia due to the region’s poor reputation in banking and opaque cash flow).

It is logical that the document does not actually contain any political statements about the future ending, including comparisons with the concept of APR, a vision of political interaction in the future of Indo-Pacific (ASEAN has historically very carefully expressed its political preferences).

Conclusion

After ASEAN’s attempts to intensify the advancement of its vision of the Indo-Pacific initiative, there was a situation where the positions of all actors with a potential concept were announced. It is obvious that the position of ASEAN, due to 5 years of silence and internal difficulties in the framework of decision-making in the organization, looks the most vulnerable. At the moment, ASEAN faces 2 conceptually important tasks:

  1. To convince the main actors of the future concept of Indo-Pacific (USA, Australia, Japan, India) that the «aseanocentric» vision is most appropriate to the current regional situation.
  2. Consolidate the organizations position on the issue of attracting (the principle of «inclusiveness» promoted since 2013) «controversial» players: China and Russia.

It is worth noting that the decision-making center for the prototype of the future Indo-Pacific concept and its potential similarity with the ideas proposed by ASEAN are now completely outside the control of ASEAN. The countries of Southeast Asia by incorrect decisions of previous years brought the region into a state of uncertainty and absolute lack of independence in building a future image of the region. This future is completely dependent on the desires of the countries initiating the concept of Indo-Pacific in 2017, primarily the United States.

The greatest that ASEAN can do now, as a single organization, is through diplomatic negotiations to achieve the greatest possible inclusion of the proposals put forward by them for the future region in the final version of the concept. It is excluded that the ASEAN option will be adopted as the basic prototype of the Indo-Pacific.

Understanding that to accomplish task No. 1, ASEAN will need some negotiation flexibility. It is expected that the organization will not raise uncomfortable issues, in the form of involving China and Russia in the Indo-Pacific.

Thus, it is worth noting that the question of ASEAN in Indo-Pacific initially looked like some kind of test for the political suitability of an organization that it did not pass successfully. The organization’s position was twice late on the impulses of the discussion: first in 2007, then in 2017. The situation with the future of ASEAN in Indo-Pacific was significantly complicated by chronic internal problems in the organization, which ultimately led to the loss of the ability to influence the potential decision on the concept in 2019. The future of the concept of the Indo-Pacific almost entirely depends on the will of more successful countries to push forward.

1. Колдунова Е. (2019) Юго-Восточная Азия перед вызовами Индо-Тихоокеанских концепций. Юго-Восточная Азия: актуальные проблемы развития. Том 1, №2 (43), Стр.42

2. Ibid.

3. Acharya A. (2017) The Myth of ASEAN Centrality?. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Studies. Vol 39, N.2.

4. Костюнина Г.М. (2017). Интеграционная модель асеан+1: основные положения соглашений и влияние на внешнеэкономические связи. Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Международные отношения, 17 (3), 441-457.

5. Дёмина В. (2018). Экономическая интеграция стран Восточной Азии. Вестник Института экономики РАН, (6), 181-194. URL: 10.24411/2073-6487-2018-00082 (Date of the application 08.05.2020)

6. Колдунова Е. (2019) Юго-Восточная Азия перед вызовами Индо-Тихоокеанских концепций. Юго-Восточная Азия: актуальные проблемы развития. Том 1, №2 (43), Стр.42

7. The State of Southeast Asia: 2019 Survey Report. (2019) Singapore: ISEAS, 2019. P.12, 25.

8. Ibid.

From our partner RIAC

Southeast Asia

US Secretary of State Pompeo set to boost Indonesian religious reform efforts

Published

on

State Department photo by Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is set to boost efforts by the world’s largest Muslim movement to recontextualize Islam during a forthcoming visit to Indonesia as part of a three-nation Asian tour. The tour is likely to be the secretary’s last official trip prior to next month’s US presidential election.

Mr. Pompeo’s engagement with Nahdlatul Ulama, a powerful Islamic grouping in Indonesia, with an estimated following of 50 million people, takes on added significance against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s push for a definition of human rights that redefines notions of freedom of religion at the expense of other basic rights in advance of a hard fought election that Donald J. Trump could lose.

It also comes as French President Emmanuel Macron kicked into high gear his self-declared mission of reforming what he has termed an Islam that “is a religion that is in crisis all over the world” in the wake of the gruesome murder of Samuel Paty, a 47-year old teacher.

Mr. Paty was killed by an 18-year old youth of Chechen descent after he used cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a class about freedom of expression.

The Indonesia-leg at the end of Mr. Pompeo’s tour, which is first taking him to India and Sri Lanka, similarly comes as Nahdlatul Ulama, an independent civil society movement, competes globally with Saudi, United Arab Emirates, and Turkish state-backed efforts to garner religious soft power and shape the definition of what constitutes moderate Islam.

Nahdlatul Ulama was founded almost a century ago in opposition to Wahhabism, the austere interpretation of Islam, that has largely guided Saudi Arabia since its founding in 1932.

Mr. Pompeo and his top aides are scheduled to participate in two days of events in the Indonesian capital organized by Nahdlatul Ulama to nurture “the shared civilizational aspirations” of Indonesia, the United States and Islam, defined by the group with the Qur’anic phrase that the faith is “a source of universal love and compassion.”

By giving Nahdlatul Ulama the State Department’s seal of approval, Mr. Pompeo is implicitly acknowledging the fact that the group unlike its rivals in the quest for religious soft power has started to put its money where its mouth is.

Unlike its soft power rivals, Nahdlatul Ulama has spelt out its definition of moderate Islam with its adoption in 2015 of the concept of Nusantara (Archipelago) or humanitarian Islam that calls for a full embrace of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNHDR).

Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE project themselves as models of undefined forms of moderate Islam manifested by engagement in inter-faith dialogue and varying degrees of religious tolerance.

They have, however, stopped short of addressing theologically problematic concepts like that of kafirs or infidels, the Muslim reference to non-Muslims, slavery, dhimmis, people of the book that Islam recognizes but accords a lesser status than Muslims, apostasy, and blasphemy.

They have also manoeuvred in inter-faith gatherings to evade unrestricted support of the UN human rights declaration.

By contrast, Nahdlatul Ulama has taken initial steps in that direction even if it still has a ways to go. Thousands of the group’s religious scholars issued a fatwa or religious opinion that eliminated the notion of infidels, effectively removing one pillar of Muslim perceptions of religious supremacy.

Based on statements by Nahdlatul Ulama leaders, the group’s scholars are likely to next do away with the legal concept of slavery.

The group’s litmus test will be if and when it takes on apostasy and blasphemy, concepts that are certain to be far more emotive and controversial. Nahdlatul Ulama officials say the group has long accepted in practice conversion away from Islam.

Mr. Pompeo’s acknowledgement of Nahdlatul Ulama further suggests that the State Department recognizes that religious reform is more likely to successfully be enacted by independent civil society actors with proper religious credentials and a significant following rather than states.

It is a recognition that by implication highlights the limitations of efforts by states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey, to define the essence of Islam as well as Mr. Macron’s ambition to solve the faith’s problems for it.

Mr. Pompeo lands in Jakarta shortly after signing the Geneva Consensus Declaration alongside a host of countries that propagate conservative values and rank low on Georgetown University’s Women, Peace and Security Index.

The declaration seeks to promote women’s rights and health and strengthen the family but emphasizes that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.”

It stipulates that there is “no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion.”

The declaration’s signatories include Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Iraq, Sudan, South Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Belarus, Hungary, and Indonesia.

Many of the signatories are members of the Group of Friends, a block of 25 nations in the United Nations that seeks to pre-empt any expansion of rights for girls, women, and LGBT people and weaken international support for the Beijing Declaration, a landmark 1995 agreement that stands as an internationally recognized progressive blueprint for women’s rights.

Much of the group’s positions are coordinated by the Center for Family and Human Rights, or C-Fam, a small but influential far-right group that focuses on abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity. C-Fam has worked closely with the State Department dating back to the administration of US President George W. Bush.

Accompanied by among others Mary Ann Glendon, the head of the State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights, Mr. Pompeo’s arrival in Jakarta also comes after the centre-right Centrist Democrat International (IDC-CDI), the world’s largest alliance of political parties, acknowledged the Commission’s report as “a re-affirmation of the spirit and substance of fundamental human rights.”

Indonesia’s National Awakening Party (PKB), which has five seats in President Joko Widodo’s cabinet and is an influential member of IDC-CDI, is closely associated with Nahdlatul Ulama.

Critics have charged that the Commission’s report fuels assertions that there are too many human rights and prioritizes religious liberty and property rights at the expense of protections against discrimination particularly on the basis of gender.

As a result, Mr. Pompeo’s endorsement of Nahdlatul Ulama could prove to be a double-edged sword. It strengthens the group’s proposition, yet also identifies it with one faction in a global battle that not only seeks to define the soul of Islam but also fundamentally shape what constitutes a human right.

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

Lessons from Cambodia and the way ahead- quest for peace and reconciliation

Published

on

Khieu Samphan (left) and Nuon Chea in the Trial Chamber of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). File photo. Photo: ECCC

Victims are Cambodians, the criminals are Cambodians, and the crimes were committed on Cambodian soil!

This was the justification given by the Cambodian Government under Hun Sen to establish the Cambodian Khmer Rouge Tribunal (KRT) formally known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) – a hybrid Cambodian-International Court in conjunction with the International Community in 2006 under the Cambodian law to try leaders most responsible for perpetrating gross violations of human rights during the Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge period from 1975 to 1978. However, even before the establishment of the Tribunal, the members of the International Community in the panel was reduced in compliance with the request made by Cambodia at the UN General Assembly moreover with its implementation the Tribunal witnessed an increased political interference diluting the whole process. Thus the success of any such program will depend on the commitments and cooperation from the Government

Compromise made over justice for Peace and Reconciliation and its worth

With its 16 years of work in the country, the court is now coming to close with sentencing just three of the perpetrators for life imprisonment – despite the heavy investments made by external actors and of the struggles and the criticisms faced, as a result of adhering to the Cambodian Government’s request pointing to a renewed civil war within the country- destabilizing peace, economic growth, social order, and political stability, if the court moved ahead with its trials.

Thus, there was a dilemma on how to balance the prospective and retrospective justice, most importantly the Tribunal has been a setback to scholars of Transitional Justice, who believed to achieve through the TJ mechanism, a strengthened rule of law, democratic transition, and fair and transparent political institutions that victims can trust, instead, the court helped in legitimizing the authoritarian regime. The failure was more associated with the political compromise allowed to be made respecting the sovereignty, thereby allowing the government to choose how to deal with its violent past, while the critics point out “whether there had been a better option”.

However citing the Cambodian case study, questions have been raised against the scholars who preferred the ‘maximalist approach’ emphasizing the justice, on whether it had been possible and was practical to carry out the trials for all perpetrators or for the criminals who conducted the gravest crime, to stop the elite from securing impunity, strengthen the democracy or to serve as a model contributing to a strong independent judicial system. Critics also pointed out the heavy expenditure incurred, pointless testimonies and documentaries submitted as evidence, against victim’s testimony censorship, and on the accessibility of the court system to the poor. Debates also brought in the need to consider the time factor for retributive justice, pointing the consequences associated with the delay made in taking action (by the time court decided to sentence criminals for life long sentences, they were suffering from old age diseases, and even some of the victims were suffering from amnesia).

Cambodian Dilemma and questions raised against Transitional Justice

The Cambodian case brought in new dilemmas for retributive justice supporters with the ‘Karmic justice’ belief by the victims, pointing out how cultural barriers can affect the Westernized Transitional Justice mechanisms and asking to what extent does Transitional Justice appear as ‘savior’ for the victims of Khmer regime and against the TJ’s employing of particular tool-kit without understanding society and of expecting the local populations to fit into their prescribed template and finally against the voices that speak for or represent the victim’s demands. The whole idea of the hybrid court thus gets questioned with Cambodians different understanding of justice. This understanding has also questioned whether the justice had contributed to reconciliation (which some scholars consider as complementary strands of peace-building), through the reparations, forgiveness, and apologies for historical injustices made to repair the relationships between victims and perpetrators.

Different voices have been raised- some claiming reconciliation remains elusive with many of the members involved in the violence still serving in the Government, thus questioning the Government’s legitimacy and on the interest of the International actors to entrust them to carry out the TJ mechanism, and against the resistance of some International actors and the Government to dig into the past and on fixing the time frame for transitional justice actors to look into, critics also points out the emotionless and insincere apology made by the perpetrators which revictimized the victims and on giving amnesty to perpetrators purely on regimes interest and finally on classifying the perpetrators as poor thus not allowing the victims to claim reparation.

Way Ahead

However, on a positive note, this partial retributive justice, empowered the victims after receiving acknowledgment from the Government, besides it paved the way for the current Cambodian generation to understand their past and gave voice to the victims by allowing them to share their stories. Above all, it helped construct history about the forgotten and erased atrocities done by the Khmer regime from school curriculums and minds of the larger public and finally contributed to the rise of civil society organizations, and helped preserve the crime sites, pressured authorities to construct the museums and library, and in fixing a national commemoration day. All these efforts have helped prevent relapsing into violence to date, thus behind the criticisms, this genuine accomplishment shouldn’t be ignored. It is now important to not let all these efforts go in vain, to not be a passive observer for the marginalization and disempowerment of victims to take place, to not let the society have a faded or distorted version of history. The Memories must be kept alive through all generations, the sites, rituals, ceremonies, must be preserved. Most of all, the victims must be provided with platforms to express their traumatic experience and it must be ensured that the regime doesn’t engage in acts that hurt the sentiments of the victims and the dead must be honored. Thus a culture that respects human rights can help in achieving sustainable peace and reconciliation and gradually reduce the mistrust between the State and the victims and help in healing the past trauma and restore the dignity of the victims. 

Moreover, it must be made clear to the regime that this retributive justice is the only first step to achieve reconciliation. Through the civil society the local reconciliation, documentation of victim’s concerns, and peace-building efforts must be supported. At the same time, it should also be ensured that these efforts get acknowledged at the national level. Further, the underlying causes of the conflict must be studied in detail, and failures from Cambodia should be taken as a reference by Transitional Justice scholars. Most importantly the concentration must shift to root causes through critical ethnographic studies, understanding how the cultural barriers can affect the Transitional justice mechanism and by taking note of the immediate needs of the victims ( the economic, social, and cultural rights), thus gradually helping the victims to integrate into the mainstream society. Failure to do so can make society relapse into violence moreover criticisms will arise against the external actor’s intervention and interest to create a stable market society.

Continue Reading

Southeast Asia

Yoshihide Suga’s Official Trip: What Does He Expect from Vietnam and Indonesia?

Published

on

Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga arriving in Indonesia. Image source: japan.kantei.go.jp

Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s certainly understands the political importance of continuity, especially in Southeast Asia. Suga making a first stop in Hanoi, Vietnam and his second visit in Jakarta, Indonesia. Southeast Asian countries as key to pursuing Japan’s “free and open Indo-Pacific,” strategy. There must be other reasons for Suga to visit these two countries, Vietnam is current ASEAN chair, while Indonesia as the only member of the Group of 20 major economies from Southeast Asia. Both of them have important roles to share historical, economic cooperation, and political ties. Are those the only reasons?

Katsunobu Kato, a cabinet secretary Japan, states that Indonesia and Vietnam as the partners to exchange opinions over how to handle the regional and global impeding agendas such cooperation for realizing a fee and open Indo-Pacific strategy, address South China Sea issues and North Korean Situations. hence, there are three keys Suga’s first foreign visit as Japan PM amid Chinese Aggression in South China Sea, Indo-Pacific Partnership and North Korea situation.

As one of the key strategic Japanese objective to expand Indo-Pacific Partnership by implementing an internal balancing that involves efforts to enhance the state’s power by increasing one’s economic resources and military strength in order to be able to rely on independent capabilities in response to a potential hegemon, in this case China, and be able to compete more effectively in the international system. Promoting coordination between partners like Indonesia and Vietnam and helping both countries to strengthen their economic and maritime capabilities to build up resilience in front of Chinese aggression and its influence.

During the pandemic, Japan economy has been hit harder by the crisis than the US or EU that 3.4% fall in growth domestic product (GDP) for the first three months of 2020. Since the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games will be postponed until next year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of this, Japan is set to suffer severe economic blows. Vietnam’s growth potential and low-cost labor supply continue to curry favor among Japanese companies, making Vietnam has been selected by Japanese firms as the most promising place in Asia to invest in 2020with 42.1 percent of the 820 valid responses. Previously, Japan has given ¥200 million in aid to help Vietnam fight the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hands, Suga pledged low-interest loans of 50 billion yen ($473 million) to Indonesiato overcome with the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. As the symbols of strong friendship ties between Indonesia and Japan, which support each other’s.

Japan also seek stronger security, Vietnam is critical to the balance of power in Asia and Indonesia faced off against China in the Natuna Sea. In order to response the Chinese Aggression in South China Sea, Japan seeks to strengthen ties with countries in the region amid growing tensions between its main security ally the United States and its biggest trading partner China, over trade, security. Japan hailed an agreement in principle to supply Vietnam and Indonesia with military gear and technology to response the China’s assertiveness in the region. China claims some part of Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone as well as the Paracel and Spratly Islands while Indonesia has been angered by Chinese coast guard intrusions into Natuna Islands. In this regard, Suga expect that both of Indonesia and Vietnam will agree to work together over a range of regional issues, including China’s growing maritime presence in South China Sea. Japan wanted to emphasize that the existence of Indonesia and Vietnam was very important in the eyes of Japan. In this context, Indonesia and Vietnam is expected not to rely only on one country, which is China, with its economic and technological strength. Meanwhile, Japan also wants to invite Indonesia and Vietnam to continue developing growth in the Indo Pacific region. Since Indonesia is currently pursuing stronger relations with countries in Africa through the Indonesia-Africa Infrastructure Dialogue. On the other hand, Vietnam has been making great strides in projecting itself as an effective leader, particularly with its proactive governance in handling the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change policy, and for its political stability.

Balancing encompasses the actions that a particular state or group of states take in order to equalize the odds against more powerful states. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is thus seeking to build a network and partners in the Indo-Pacific, both to strengthen the current alliance system but also to proactive in defending its own interests. Vietnam and Indonesia were key to pursuing multilateral economic and security cooperation to counter China’s growing power and protect sea lanes in disputed areas of the South China Sea.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending