#sesparlu

This essay will address the issue on Indonesia’s leadership in organizing the Ministerial Meeting of High Contracting Parties (HCP). Before looking into detail of this issue, perhaps, it is imperative to portrait Indonesia’s leadership in the ASEAN region and beyond through Holsti’s National Role Conception.[1] According to this theory, Indonesia’s leadership in ASEAN and beyond has been spurred by the country’s role conception as a natural leader and big brother of ASEAN, and Third World leader. Naturally, Indonesia has managed to show its strong leadership in ASEAN.

As an original party of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), which has currently been accessed by 35 HCP, has an interest to fully implement TAC, including the establishment of the TAC High Council (HC). HC has not been set up since the start of TAC despite the existence of some disputes between the parties such as disputes between the Philippines and Malaysia on Sabah and dispute between Thailand and Cambodia on Temple of Preach Vihear. This fact has indicated that the work of HC may not be coherent with the principle of non-interference as stipulated in Article 2 of TAC. The past existing disputes were mostly undertaken through bilateral mechanism or brought to the international court. HC is seemingly neither suitable nor practical in settling disputes between ASEAN states.[2]

There are some scenarios concerning the leadership of Indonesia in the implementation of TAC.

First, if the Ministerial Meeting of the HCP is aimed to establish HC as mentioned in Article 14 of the TAC, it is hard for Indonesia to achieve it. There should be consent from all parties to establish HC. The agreement should be sought first before moving on the establishment of HC. Such a miniterial meeting is likely hard to be held in the near future.

Second, if the Ministerial Meeting of HCP is aimed as a dialogue forum as stipulated by the Article 9 of the TAC, it is feasible to be held in the near future. The meeting among others can be intended to review the content of TAC. To exert its leadership, Indonesia should manage to ensure that the meeting could produce substantial results. Indonesia should manage to provide good and feasible modalities, agenda, and projections on the better contents of TAC.

Third, if the disputes among ASEAN states, Indonesia can urge the disputing states to settle the problem through informal ASEAN mechanism or bilateral talks. Indonesia, with the consent of disputing states, can seek to become an honest broker. Indonesia had become a mediator between Malaysia and the Philippines on Sabah in the era of Suharto.[3]

Among the above scenarios, the second and third scenarios are quite possible to be conducted by  Indonesia to exercise its leadership among ASEAN states and beyond.

Jakarta, 30 November 2017

————————————————

[1] Holsti, K. J. 1970. National Role Conceptions in the Study of Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly 14(3): 233-309

[2] Chareonwongsak, Kriengsak. (no year). ASEAN’s limit in conflict resolution in the region

Can Diplomat avoid misinformation in Digital Era?

The telecommunication technology grows very fast. Smartphone and other digital gadget have been penetrate the society so deep as never seen in the history. Even people who live in the remote area nowadays can enjoy the service of data communication or internet. With such connectivity, information is acquired, stored, processed, managed, and shared in a way that is almost completely different from…