ID :
176536
Tue, 04/19/2011 - 15:47
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/176536
The shortlink copeid
From Bandung to ASEAN: a reflection on the Natalegawa doctrine
BANGKOK, April 19 (TNA) - This week marked the 56th anniversary of the Bandung Conference, a meeting that took place in the Western Javanese city of Bandung in the then barely 5 year-old Republic of Indonesia.
The historic conference was attended by political leaders of various backgrounds, ranging from princes to peasant revolutionaries, coming from countries across Asia and Africa, some of which used to be imperial powers while others had just gained, or were about to gain their independence. The commonality between these people, noted an observer at the time, was that they were, in some way or another, all oppressed through misguided racial prejudices: they were victims of Western Imperialism.
What brought them together was their common desire to be free from the global order carved out by superpowers at the time; the US and the USSR. They were commonly seeking a space uninvolved in the polarisation of the Cold War, a space not aligned with East or West.
Indonesian president Sukarno opened the Conference by remarking on the need to find “ways and means” for Asian and African countries to “live their own lives, in their own way, in harmony and in peace”. The strong desire for this type of self-determination and solidarity among the oppressed against the backdrop of Imperialism and power politics became known as “the Spirit of Bandung”: an ideal that was shattered as historic circumstances and ensuing events drew those involved at Bandung, including Sukarno, to become embroiled in Cold War politics.
56 years on, another Indonesian, this time the soft-spoken Foreign Minister, Dr. Marty Natalegawa reiterated the desire to see a world where countries can carve out a space in which to grow and prosper together by maintaining what he calls “dynamic equilibrium” among nations.
Unlike the era of the Bandung Conference, this approach is now possible, Dr. Marty argues, because the current globalised international landscape allows more room for nation-states to cooperate and work together toward common interests rather than through the narrow confines created by persistent power balancing acts.
Seeing himself as a consensus builder and an “aggressive peace wager”, the Indonesian Foreign Minister argues that through persuasion and the exertion of soft power, a peaceful international order can be maintained as long as the upsurges of nations are accommodated and incorporated, rather than contained by the established order. Values should not be imposed, he says, but rather encouraged through multilateral mechanisms. Four months into a year as Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN, Dr. Marty naturally sees both his roles as platforms for building bridges across differences in order to promote peace among nations.
His ideals were put to a test in February this year when border tensions escalated between Thailand and Cambodia and broke out into deadly armed skirmishes. Dr. Marty navigated the minefield of nationalistic prides of both Southeast Asian countries with conviction, taking a lead both at the regional and international level in mediating the conflict, which resulted in both sides returning to the negotiation table. While Thai domestic politics could still trigger a deterioration back into conflict in the future, both countries are certainly feeling the presence of Indonesia and ASEAN in their quarrelling.
Fueled by remarkable economic growth and a thriving democracy, Indonesian foreign policy under the aegis of Dr. Marty have some resemblance to the early years of Sukarno’s presidency, especially in the way Indonesia that is seeking a way to assert itself in the region and the world. Critics have asked how this type of foreign policy will benefit the Indonesian public and how will consensus building address serious short-comings in ASEAN, such as the effort to bring about a real democratic transition in Myanmar, or the bridging of the development gap that existed between rich and poor Southeast Asian countries.
It remains to be seen how Marty’s foreign policy will fare through the inevitable challenges ahead in coming years. It is highly likely that his vision of a world in dynamic equilibrium, where Indonesia and ASEAN stands among peers in a community of nations, will be severely tested by short comings within the Southeast Asian region. With ASEAN planning to form an joint open economic community by the year 2015, Dr. Marty insists that greater effort is need in order to increase the level of participation from the people of ASEAN nations themselves, making the Association more relevant to the people and more “down to earth” as an entity.
More than half a century on from the half-forgotten Bandung Conference, ASEAN is now finding itself at a cross road, not dissimilar to the one Sukarno and others found themselves in back in 1955. Like those leaders of newly independent Asia and Africa countries, Southeast Asian leaders are now faced with the need to form a common identity to help them navigate the complex landscape of a global order that is in flux. Unlike the time of Bandung, unity between Southeast Asian countries has developed and become much less artificial than the so-called solidarity between the newly independent Asian and African nations of the time.
Perhaps here is where Dr. Marty’s approach to foreign policy can help the modern established Indonesia move forward in the global arena through its exertion, helping to solidify ASEAN’s position in the international community by example. The question now revolves around whether the people of ASEAN will embrace the region’s identity building process, and pick up the pieces where the political leaders have left off, or whether the spirit of ASEAN will share the same fate as Bandung: a well intended dream swallowed by the forces of history. (TNA)
The historic conference was attended by political leaders of various backgrounds, ranging from princes to peasant revolutionaries, coming from countries across Asia and Africa, some of which used to be imperial powers while others had just gained, or were about to gain their independence. The commonality between these people, noted an observer at the time, was that they were, in some way or another, all oppressed through misguided racial prejudices: they were victims of Western Imperialism.
What brought them together was their common desire to be free from the global order carved out by superpowers at the time; the US and the USSR. They were commonly seeking a space uninvolved in the polarisation of the Cold War, a space not aligned with East or West.
Indonesian president Sukarno opened the Conference by remarking on the need to find “ways and means” for Asian and African countries to “live their own lives, in their own way, in harmony and in peace”. The strong desire for this type of self-determination and solidarity among the oppressed against the backdrop of Imperialism and power politics became known as “the Spirit of Bandung”: an ideal that was shattered as historic circumstances and ensuing events drew those involved at Bandung, including Sukarno, to become embroiled in Cold War politics.
56 years on, another Indonesian, this time the soft-spoken Foreign Minister, Dr. Marty Natalegawa reiterated the desire to see a world where countries can carve out a space in which to grow and prosper together by maintaining what he calls “dynamic equilibrium” among nations.
Unlike the era of the Bandung Conference, this approach is now possible, Dr. Marty argues, because the current globalised international landscape allows more room for nation-states to cooperate and work together toward common interests rather than through the narrow confines created by persistent power balancing acts.
Seeing himself as a consensus builder and an “aggressive peace wager”, the Indonesian Foreign Minister argues that through persuasion and the exertion of soft power, a peaceful international order can be maintained as long as the upsurges of nations are accommodated and incorporated, rather than contained by the established order. Values should not be imposed, he says, but rather encouraged through multilateral mechanisms. Four months into a year as Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN, Dr. Marty naturally sees both his roles as platforms for building bridges across differences in order to promote peace among nations.
His ideals were put to a test in February this year when border tensions escalated between Thailand and Cambodia and broke out into deadly armed skirmishes. Dr. Marty navigated the minefield of nationalistic prides of both Southeast Asian countries with conviction, taking a lead both at the regional and international level in mediating the conflict, which resulted in both sides returning to the negotiation table. While Thai domestic politics could still trigger a deterioration back into conflict in the future, both countries are certainly feeling the presence of Indonesia and ASEAN in their quarrelling.
Fueled by remarkable economic growth and a thriving democracy, Indonesian foreign policy under the aegis of Dr. Marty have some resemblance to the early years of Sukarno’s presidency, especially in the way Indonesia that is seeking a way to assert itself in the region and the world. Critics have asked how this type of foreign policy will benefit the Indonesian public and how will consensus building address serious short-comings in ASEAN, such as the effort to bring about a real democratic transition in Myanmar, or the bridging of the development gap that existed between rich and poor Southeast Asian countries.
It remains to be seen how Marty’s foreign policy will fare through the inevitable challenges ahead in coming years. It is highly likely that his vision of a world in dynamic equilibrium, where Indonesia and ASEAN stands among peers in a community of nations, will be severely tested by short comings within the Southeast Asian region. With ASEAN planning to form an joint open economic community by the year 2015, Dr. Marty insists that greater effort is need in order to increase the level of participation from the people of ASEAN nations themselves, making the Association more relevant to the people and more “down to earth” as an entity.
More than half a century on from the half-forgotten Bandung Conference, ASEAN is now finding itself at a cross road, not dissimilar to the one Sukarno and others found themselves in back in 1955. Like those leaders of newly independent Asia and Africa countries, Southeast Asian leaders are now faced with the need to form a common identity to help them navigate the complex landscape of a global order that is in flux. Unlike the time of Bandung, unity between Southeast Asian countries has developed and become much less artificial than the so-called solidarity between the newly independent Asian and African nations of the time.
Perhaps here is where Dr. Marty’s approach to foreign policy can help the modern established Indonesia move forward in the global arena through its exertion, helping to solidify ASEAN’s position in the international community by example. The question now revolves around whether the people of ASEAN will embrace the region’s identity building process, and pick up the pieces where the political leaders have left off, or whether the spirit of ASEAN will share the same fate as Bandung: a well intended dream swallowed by the forces of history. (TNA)
