Indonesia, ASEAN

and Regional Stability

Prof. Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, M.A.
Inaugural Lecture as a Member of the Social Science
Commission of the Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Auditorium, Secretariat of the Vice President, Jakarta,

16 February 2017
 Indonesia, ASEAN
and Regional Stability
Prof. Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, M.A.

Introduction 4
The Benefits of ASEAN for Indonesia 6
ASEAN’s Role in Maintaining Regional Peace and Stability 14
Conclusion 22

Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 3

Introduction

4 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA ASEAN Flag

Source: rankflags.com
O
n the 8th of August 2017, the Association of
South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) will turn
fifty years old. During this year, many seminars,
discussions, and other activities are certain to
be held to commemorate the half-century of
ASEAN, an age that cannot be called young anymore. Since its
founding in Bangkok through a short declaration by five countries
(Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand),
ASEAN has successfully gathered ten countries into one regional
cooperative forum, along with becoming the main determinant of
regional order, both between its members and in Southeast Asia’s
relationship with external parties.
ASEAN has attained many achievements, the most apparent
being ASEAN’s contribution in creating regional security, peace,
and stability. The ASEAN region is characterized by harmonious
relations between its members, unlike before ASEAN’s
establishment. In contrast to many other regions in the world,
which are full of tensions, such as in Northeast Asia or the open
conflicts in the Middle East, the Southeast Asian region can be
likened to a peaceful oasis.
entire South China Sea.
All this time, ASEAN has been regarded as the cornerstone of
Indonesia’s foreign policy. Lately, however, there are those who
view that Indonesia should no longer regard ASEAN as its main
priority given that Indonesia’s national interests far exceed what
ASEAN is able to offer. On the occasion of ASEAN’s fifty years
of existence, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the main
reasons why Indonesia was active in the founding of ASEAN,
along with understanding why and how ASEAN’s institutions
have developed in such a way as we see today. Next, we need
to see our current and future challenges and think what we can
do together to ensure that the Southeast Asian region and its
surroundings remain a safe, peaceful, and stable region, factors
which are absolutely necessary for economic development and
prosperity.

Aside from its various achievements, ASEAN has also invited

many criticisms, primarily from those who want the organization
to be something more than what it is now. There are also those who
remain sceptical and question whether ASEAN is still relevant
in tackling the increasingly complex regional challenges, mainly
to what extent ASEAN can maintain its unity amidst the rise of
the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC), who aim to control the

Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 5

The Benefits
of ASEAN
for Indonesia

6 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA Balinese Dance

Source: Wikimedia Commons
I
ndonesia’s involvement in the creation of ASEAN was
one of the first significant foreign policies by the New
Order government under President Suharto, which
fundamentally changed the orientation of Indonesia’s
foreign policy away from the preceding era under the
leadership of President Sukarno. This change in orientation was
a logical consequence of the domestic changes. Under President
Sukarno, especially during the Guided Democracy era (1959-
1965) which was commonly known as the Old Order, Indonesia’s
foreign policy was chiefly concerned with the decolonization
of West Irian which was then still under Dutch control and also
with rallying the powers of newly independent and developing
countries against neo-colonialism and global imperialism which
were seen as the main threats to Indonesia’s sovereignty and
territorial integrity. Indonesia carried out a “lighthouse” foreign
policy in order to build a world free from the domination of
Western colonialist and imperialist countries. President Sukarno
launched the “ganyang” or crush Malaysia confrontation as he
deemed the creation of the Malaysian Federation in 1963, which
was orchestrated by the British, as an effort to maintain the latter’s
influence over its former colonies, and perceived as a threat to
Indonesia’s national interests.
The policy of confrontation with Malaysia worsened Indonesia’s
relations with Western countries, which were the world’s main
economic powers. During that time, Indonesia’s foreign policy
turned increasingly leftward, resulting in the Jakarta-Phnom
Penh-Hanoi-Pyongyang-Peking Axis. This situation was the
background to Indonesia’s domestic political turmoil which
ended in President Sukarno’s fall from his position as ‘President
for Life’, the rise in power of the armed forces, and the birth of
the anti-communist New Order regime under President Suharto.
For the New Order government, the main threat to Indonesia’
stability and integrity came from within. While communist powers,
primarily the PRC, replaced neo-colonialism and imperialism
as the primary external threats. The leaders of the New Order
quickly froze Indonesia’s diplomatic relations with the PRC
as Beijing was alleged to have been involved in the G30S/PKI
movement in 1965. The New Order government’s priorities were
to ensure domestic peace, stability, and economic development,
all of which were intertwined, considering that in the first two
decades after Indonesia’s declaration of independence, Indonesia
was embroiled in many conflicts and economic crises. In order
to increase economic growth, Indonesia needed large amounts of
investments, loans, aid, technological knowhow, and markets for
its exports, which at that time could only be provided by western
industrialized countries and Japan, which was the United States’
main ally in Asia.
The formation of ASEAN as a platform for regional cooperation
among non-communist Southeast Asian countries, at a time when
the Vietnam War was raging at the height of the global rivalry
between the eastern and western blocs, was a significant strategic
step for Indonesia and Southeast Asia as a whole. During the
research for my PhD dissertation on “ASEAN as an Aspect of
Indonesian Foreign Policy” around thirty years ago, I noted
eight main reasons for Indonesia’s involvement in the creation of
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 7
ASEAN along with its commitment to maintain ASEAN as the
cornerstone of Indonesia’s foreign policy which are still relevant
today.
1. ASEAN forms and maintains Indonesia’s image as a good
neighbour for regional stability
The confrontation policy to ‘crush’ Malaysia that was launched
by the Old Order as alluded to before worsened relations between
Indonesia and Western countries, especially the United Kingdom,
the United States, and its allies. Just as important, neighbouring
Southeast Asian countries perceived Indonesia as aggressive and
threatening. Neighbouring countries which are all smaller in size,
especially Malaysia and Singapore, saw Indonesia as a “regional
bully” that endangered its environment. Other than freezing
diplomatic relations with the PRC, the first diplomatic step taken
by the New Order government was to stop the confrontation and
restore bilateral relations with Malaysia. Yet this was not deemed
to be sufficient. Indonesia needed to convince everyone that its
confrontational foreign policy against neighbouring Southeast
Asian nations would not be repeated.
By binding itself within ASEAN, Indonesia made a commitment
to always maintain good relations with its neighbouring countries.
Its foreign policy, which was previously confrontational and
“high-profile”, became based on regional cooperation and “low-
profile”. The stigma as an aggressive country slowly changed
when Indonesia succeeded in showing restraint when dealing
with its smaller neighbours.
8 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA
Indonesia’s membership in ASEAN, which throughout the Cold
War only included non-communist countries, also strengthened
Indonesia’s image as an anti-communist power in Southeast Asia.
All of these played an important role in attracting the support of
Western countries and Japan, particularly during the Cold War, so
as to entice economic aid for Indonesia.
Although in the fifty years since ASEAN was established Indonesia
has succeeded in showing its commitment to maintaining good
relations with its neighbours, the suspicion of smaller countries
towards Indonesia as the largest member has yet to be fully
erased. The continuation of Indonesia’s role in ASEAN still and
will always be needed in order to maintain Indonesia’s image as a
peace-loving country in the region.
2. ASEAN encourages a harmonious region
It cannot be denied that there is a positive correlation between
the presence of ASEAN and an increasingly harmonious regional
situation, a situation that was very different from the one that
existed before 1967. Despite the fact that during the first two
decades there was little concrete cooperation within ASEAN,
increasingly intensive interactions fostered mutual trust and
understanding among its members. ASEAN succeeded in easing
tensions and preventing open conflicts between its members
because the continuation of the regional organization was
regarded as a manifestation of the commitment of each member
state to foster cooperation and a peaceful region. To this end,
the member states of ASEAN tended to restrain themselves in
their relations with one another so as to not endanger regional
cooperation, among others by holding firmly to the principle of
not interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
In its development, which will be discussed further later on,
ASEAN as an institution has also been successful in building
norms, values, and rules that bind all member states to avoid
using force while also advancing peaceful avenues in resolving
conflict.
3. ASEAN as a security buffer
For Indonesia, ASEAN is also seen as a security buffer, since
being surrounded by friendly neighbours meant the potential
of external threats to Indonesia would come from further away
from Indonesia’s territory. If there is an external attack, say from
the north, the effects of it will be felt outside of Indonesia’s
territory first, thus giving Indonesia more time to strengthen its
defensive capabilities. Just as important, although differences
in perspectives exist, the founding ASEAN members during the
Cold War were able to stand united against a common threat, such
as the threat of communism.
The end of the Cold War and the expansion of ASEAN
membership to comprise ten member states, some of them
communist, does not diminish the role of ASEAN as a buffer
against external threats to Indonesia. Indonesia and the other
members have already started to build a “security community”
whereby the likelihood of warfare within the ASEAN region
becomes even more diminished, so that the potential for external
threat still comes from outside of ASEAN. However, the rising
differences in perspectives regarding threats among ASEAN
member states have resulted in new complications to unifying
the position of ASEAN member states in confronting external
challenges, as can be seen from the recent South China Sea issue.
This will be discussed further later.
4. ASEAN contributes to the development of an autonomous
regional order
When ASEAN was founded, Indonesia was the only ASEAN
member state that was part of the Non-Aligned Movement,
whereas the others were part of a military alliance with either
the United States (the Philippines and Thailand) or with the
United Kingdom (Malaysia and Singapore). With a free and
active foreign policy doctrine, Indonesia has from the beginning
believed that developing and newly-independent countries must
be able to act autonomously in the international community and
not merely place itself as a follower of the superpower countries.
In the Southeast Asian region, Indonesia wanted the regional
order to to be neither controlled nor dominated by outside
powers, but rather, that it be determined by the nations within the
region itself. In this regard, whether through the confrontation
policy which was aimed at denying the continuation of British
colonial influence, or the regional cooperation policy which could
strengthen the unity of regional members in confronting external
threats, Indonesia essentially had the same goal, which is to work
towards the strategic autonomy of Southeast Asia.
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 9
Through ASEAN, Indonesia endeavoured to insert the values of
a free and active foreign policy as well as non-alignment to the
other member states, among others by inserting a statement in
the Bangkok Declaration of 1967 that the presence of foreign
military bases is temporary in nature and could not be used to
threaten other ASEAN countries. Indonesia also played a key role
in giving birth to the declaration which states that Southeast Asia
is a “Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality” or ZOPFAN at the
first extraordinary meeting of ASEAN foreign ministers in Kuala
Lumpur in 1971.
In ASEAN’s development in the years since then, Indonesia has
always been at the forefront in fighting for increased regional
security as well as for raising ASEAN’s capability to be the main
actor in developing an autonomous regional order. It is important
to note that, with all the various headways that have been made
in the political and defence cooperation lately, ASEAN no longer
only tries to maintain a Southeast Asian regional order that
is autonomous from external domination, but has also played
an active role in pushing for the formation of a wider regional
architecture with ASEAN as its axis.
5. ASEAN plays an important role in increasing the
international bargaining power of its members
ASEAN has received wide acclaim as one of the most successful
regional organizations. ASEAN’s success in fostering regional
cooperation is regarded by many as second only to the European
Union. Many countries and organizations, whether international
10 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA
or regional, have or intend to have a close relationship with
ASEAN. All of these not only increase the allure and bargaining
power of the ASEAN region as a whole in vying for common
interests, but also the bargaining power of its member states in
fighting for their interests with third parties. In many cases, one
or two ASEAN member states facing tough negotiations with
external parties have successfully used the solidarity of ASEAN
to achieve their specific objectives.
6. ASEAN increases the international credibility of Indonesia.
There are those who view that ASEAN has confined Indonesia
in a golden cage which has constrained Indonesia from acting
as freely as before it joined ASEAN. By running a low-profile
foreign policy and tending to put forward ASEAN first, criticism
has arisen that Indonesia is perceived to be “no longer count” and
has lost its prestige. In fact, the opposite is true.
The success or failure of ASEAN is very much dependent on the
ability of its member states in managing this regional organization,
where Indonesia is its largest member, whether seen by the size
of the country’s territory, the size of its population, or from its
GDP. From the beginning, Indonesia has been regarded as the
primus inter pares or first among equals in ASEAN, whether by
its own members or by external parties. Although all member
states have the same status, it cannot be denied that Indonesia is
ASEAN’s natural leader and is expected to always play the role
well and consistently for the sake of ASEAN’s development. If
Indonesia cannot play the role of ASEAN’s natural leader, as
when Indonesia was faced by a multidimensional crisis at the end
of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, then the rest of ASEAN will feel
its consequences.
The position and role of Indonesia within ASEAN, a dynamic
economic region with more than 600 million population, is an
integral part of the growth of Southeast Asia as a whole. In its
role as part of ASEAN, which enjoys international recognition,
Indonesia’s credibility has also increased in its wider international
interactions. It is also important to note that membership in
ASEAN has not held Indonesia back nor that of any other
countries from playing an active role outside of the organization.
On the contrary, ASEAN can give a stronger foundation for
Indonesia to act as Southeast Asia’s main representative on the
international stage.
7. ASEAN provides a regional umbrella for bilateral military
cooperation between ASEAN members.
ASEAN is not a platform for regional military cooperation.
Besides the existence of fundamental differences in the views
of ASEAN members regarding military pacts, which Indonesia
opposes, an ASEAN military cooperation was at the beginning
perceived to be dangerous to the region as it would invite the
suspicion of external parties. However, although military
cooperation is outside the scheme of ASEAN cooperation, from
the beginning, military circles have regarded the establishment of
cooperation as important to foster trust and prevent the emergence
of open conflict among ASEAN members, considering that there
are many bilateral issues that have yet to be resolved. In order to
do that, the militaries of ASEAN member states have been very
active in forming cooperation since the beginning of the regional
organization, such as by conducting joint exercises, whether
bilateral or trilateral. The existence of ASEAN also facilitates
intensive military relations and gives coherence to the said
various bilateral and trilateral activities.
ASEAN’s development in the coming year, along with
fundamental changes to the global and regional order, among
others the end of the Cold War and the increase in transnational
threats and challenges, have encouraged the inclusion of military
cooperation into the ASEAN framework, as can be seen by the
creation of the ASEAN’s Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM)
and the ADMM Plus platform, where the latter involves parties
from outside the region. In order to increase ASEAN members’
capabilities in tackling the consequences of natural disasters,
ASEAN has also conducted joint multilateral exercises, some of
which have also seen friendly nations from outside of ASEAN
being invited to participate.
Yet, there are still some sensitivities which complicates the
formation of a multilateral ASEAN military cooperation. Joint
military exercises between ASEAN member states are still
conducted either bilaterally or trilaterally. Thus the existence of
ASEAN is critical to facilitate and give a regional umbrella for
military cooperation and exercises between member states.
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 11
8. ASEAN plays a role in supporting economic development
From the explanation above, it can clearly be seen that for
Indonesia, the main reason for ASEAN’s formation and the
strengthening of regional cooperation was in the realm of politics
and security. While the focus of ASEAN’s cooperation was in
the realm of the economy, it must be admitted that Indonesia was
not that eager to support free trade, let alone ASEAN economic
integration, which was deemed to be more beneficial to other
countries given that Indonesia has the largest market and that
its products are not as competitive as those from some other
member states.
That being said, ASEAN has given a crucial contribution
towards Indonesia’s economic development, whether directly
or indirectly. Indirectly, ASEAN supports Indonesia’s economic
development in two ways. First, by promoting regional security,
peace, and stability, Indonesia does not need to allocate too much
of its resources towards maintaining defence and security of a
such a large territorial border so that Indonesia’s limited resource
could instead be used to develop other, more productive areas. It
is interesting to note that the military-dominated New Order gave
more priority to economic development rather than the armed
forces as it was deemed that this strategy was more suited towards
increasing national resilience, the threats to which came largely
from the problems of domestic poverty and inequality.
Second, as previously explained, Indonesia’s involvement in
ASEAN also played a role in attracting investment and economic
12 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA
aid from Western countries and Japan, primarily during the Cold
War. The indirect role ASEAN played for national economic
development continues to this day. With regional peace and
stability, the development of Indonesia’s defensive capabilities
is determined more by its economic capabilities rather than the
other way around that the demands for national defence would be
at the expense of economic development.
During the succeeding developments, ASEAN also directly
helped the economic development of its member states, including
Indonesia. With the ten ASEAN member’s joint population of
over 600 million people, ASEAN’s economic scale became
far larger than before and has thus become more attractive to
Indonesia. The expansion of ASEAN economic cooperation into
a single investment area and production base may increase the
allure of the region for foreign investors amidst heightened global
competition after the appearance of large economic blocs and
also new economic players from formerly-communist countries.
ASEAN’s trade liberalization has also made the regional market
more important for Indonesian exports than ever before. The
technical and economic cooperation of ASEAN with dialogue
partners have also brought benefits to member states as a whole.
Although all member states
have the same status, it
cannot be denied that
Indonesia is ASEAN’s natural
leader and is expected to
always play the role well and
consistently for the sake of
ASEAN’s development.

Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 13

ASEAN’s Role
in Maintaining
Regional Peace
and Stability.

14 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA USS Cowpens underway in the South China Sea
Source: Wikimedia Commons
T
he theory regarding the role of regional integration,
particularly economic integration, in preventing
open conflict between its member states started
to develop following the regional integration of
Western Europe. As is well known, European
history has been coloured by bloody conflicts for centuries, the
largest of which were the First World War (1914-1918) and the
Second World War (1939-1945) that resulted in the large-scale
loss of both lives and properties of all parties involved. Two
key European countries fought each other during World War II,
Germany as the aggressor that attacked France, and in the end,
almost all European countries were involved in the warfare to
support either one.
In order to avoid a repeat of the war between the the mortal
enemies of France and Germany, the leaders of both countries
began to devise a strategy since the 1950’s that would bind the
two countries in one framework of cooperation so that both sides
would suffer great losses if that framework were to be severed
because of conflict. The first initiative was to merge the iron and
coal industries of Germany and France as these two materials
were crucial in the production of weapons. In the next step,
Germany and France became the first promoters of the European
Economic Community (EEC), which attracted ever increasing
members. Ultimately, in 1992, the EEC became the European
Union (EU) through the Maastricht Treaty.
The main purpose of the EEC, and later the EU, was to prevent
conflict and maintain peace among its member states by binding
them in what was called “functional linkages”. The wider and
deeper these linkages were, the higher the cost that each member
state must pay if divisions were to arise. Economic integration
was deemed to be of key importance in this grand scheme as
economic ties that promise welfare to all nations will create a
large domestic constituent in each member state, which in turn
will become loyal supporters of the continuity of that regional
integration.
From the beginning, the regional organization which would later
become the EU was designed to be a supranational organization
which would have various powers that, at its core, reduced the
sovereignty of its member states. This is because excessive
nationalism was deemed to be the main cause of war between
European states in the past. In other words, regional integration
was intended to lessen the primacy of the nation-state with its
exclusive and aggressive nationalism in the relationship between
member states in Western Europe. The theory regarding regional
integration, which has been dominant thus far, always points to
the experience of Western Europe as its main reference point.
The idea to establish ASEAN as a platform for regional
cooperation with the purpose of maintaining peace and preventing
open conflict between its members was obviously inspired by the
experience of regional integration in Western Europe. However,
the situation in Southeast Asia is also vastly different, so that
the design and target of ASEAN cooperation is also different.
Although serving as an inspiration, the EU was not made as
the model in ASEAN’s evolution. There is one fundamental
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 15
factor that differentiates Western Europe from Southeast Asia.
In Western Europe, nationalism tends to be viewed negatively
because in the past it frequently became the catalyst for wars
between neighbouring countries. Whereas, in Southeast Asia and
newly-independent countries generally, nationalism as a whole
is viewed positively and needs to be maintained. For example, in
Indonesia, nationalism is considered very important in uniting the
various ethnicities, races, and religions to build a nation-state and
to fight for independence against colonialism, and also to maintain
the nation’s unity and integrity in the succeeding periods. It is,
therefore, not surprising if the design of regional cooperation in
Southeast Asia is not to build a supranational organization with
a strong central institution or binding agreements with sanctions
when there are violations, both of which fundamentally reduce
the sovereignty of its member states. On the contrary, from
the start, ASEAN was designed to support the development of
nation-states, including strengthening the feelings of nationalism
in order to increase the national resilience of its member states.
As was alluded to before, ASEAN was founded through a short
declaration, the Bangkok Declaration, in 1967, with the main
goal of encouraging economic partnership. During the first years
of ASEAN, cooperation in the realms of politics and security was
seen as too sensitive to the point it was never broached at all. It was
hoped that economic partnership would increase understanding
and develop trust between its members. Yet, in its evolution, it
was economic partnership that precisely saw many hurdles for
at least the first four decades of ASEAN’s existence. This was
caused by the differences that came from being colonized by
16 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA
different colonial governments for quite a long period of time,
with the exception of Thailand, which thus made the interactions
between Southeast Asian countries during the formative periods
of ASEAN quite limited, whereas their economies tended to be
competitive in nature and highly dependent on industrialized
countries from outside the region.
As a result, ASEAN was not quite able to build those “functional
linkages” that truly bound its members in a network of co-
dependence, particularly economic dependence. That being said,
the existence of ASEAN has directly contributed to the creation of
a secure, peaceful, and stable region because ASEAN succeeded
in forming the norms of behaviour for peaceful neighbourly
relations.
Although at first there was no desire to build a binding regional
integration, ASEAN gradually evolved from a very loose
association into a regional organization that was moving towards
the formation of an ASEAN Community. ASEAN’s journey can be
divided into four main phases with distinctive characteristics. The
changes from one phase to another were triggered by numerous
factors, whether pressure from the strategic environment or by
changes that happened within ASEAN member states. Besides
the various sharp criticisms directed toward ASEAN, some of
them reasonable, this regional organization has shown an adaptive
capability worthy of pride.
I. 1967-1976
The first phase between 1967 until 1976 was a period of
assessment. During this phase, there were no meaningful activities
done in the name of ASEAN. After the Bangkok Declaration,
each member state focused on internal consolidation. ASEAN
was no more than a club for Foreign Ministers as no other parts
of the governments were involved. No regional cooperation
mechanisms were formed nor were any ASEAN Summits held.
During this era, ASEAN was wholly a dependent variable of
the political will of its member states which wanted to maintain
peace so that they could pour their attention and limited resources
to the development of their own countries. Internal weakness was
perceived as the main source of existential threat for member
states which could invite external intervention.
However, during these formative years, the values that would
eventually become ASEAN’s characteristics started to develop,
among them being the respect for the sovereignty and integrity
of each member states, not intervening in each other’s domestic
affairs, and decision-making through consensus. Compliance to
these fundamental ASEAN values started to change the behaviour
of its member states so that they were able to restrain themselves
even when there were differences. It is also necessary to note that
it was during this early period that ASEAN countries released its
first joint political statement in 1971 that stated that the Southeast
Asian region was a Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality
(ZOPFAN) as a reaction to the normalization of relationship
between the United States (USA) and the People’s Republic of
China (PRC). The founding members of ASEAN, who were
all anti-communist, and some of which at first had followed
the USA’s policy of containing the PRC were surprised by this
sudden change, and realized that they could not rely on external
powers for Southeast Asia’s regional security. The ZOPFAN
declaration marked an early attempt by ASEAN to achieve
strategic autonomy in determining the regional order.
II. 1976-1991
The second phase lasted from 1976 until 1991, which was the
period in which ASEAN institutions first started to develop. The
USA’s defeat in the Vietnam War, signified by the fall of Saigon
into communist hands, shocked all the ASEAN members to the
extent that they convened for the first time a Summit in Bali in
February 1976 which resulted in a number of important decisions.
ASEAN countries deemed it necessary to strengthen cooperation
in order to face the dangers of communism, the spectre of which
was rising in Southeast Asia. Among other things, the Declaration
of ASEAN Concord I (Bali Concord I) affirmed the basic ASEAN
principles of respecting each other’s sovereignty and integrity as
well as not interfering in each other’s internal affairs. It must be
noted here that these principles were not the creation of ASEAN
but referred to the UN Charter and the Dasasila Bandung (the Ten
Bandung Principles). In order to strengthen ASEAN, there were
also calls for various regional economic partnership projects and
the formation of an ASEAN Secretariat.
Another major decision was the agreement on the Treaty of Amity
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 17
and Cooperation (TAC) which covers the whole of Southeast
Asia. TAC prohibits the use of force or threats of force to resolve
conflicts and all conflicts must be resolved peacefully. TAC
was the first and primary regional code of conduct that formed
the culture of peaceful inter-state relations within Southeast
Asia, although there were no mechanisms that would force the
signatories to obey the norms and values upon which they had
agreed.
Essentially, the Bali Concord I stresses that Southeast Asian
security and stability demands three main components: the
existence of national resilience of each member state, the
strengthening of regional resilience through increased regional
cooperation, and the compliance to a regional code of conduct
that would govern inter-state relations. During this period, a large
part of ASEAN’s focus was on the resolution of the Cambodian
conflict following the Vietnamese occupation, whereas economic
cooperation did not achieve much progress. ASEAN’s attempt
to pursue a resolution in the Cambodian conflict played a large
part in heightening the profile and credibility of ASEAN as a
regional organization that should be taken into consideration.
It is also important to note that Indonesia played a primary
role in facilitating the meeting between the conflicting parties
in Cambodia so that Indonesia, along with France, chaired the
negotiations in Paris which ended the Cambodian conflict in
1991. ASEAN’s character as a loose regional organization did not
yet significantly change because the ASEAN Secretariat did not
have any meaningful powers and was only headed by a Secretary
General of the ASEAN Secretariat, rather than an ASEAN
18 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA
Secretary General.
III. 1992-2002
The third phase lasted from 1992 to 2002 and was marked by the
expansion of ASEAN into ten member states, by the start of a more
serious regional economic partnership, and by the strengthening
of the ASEAN Secretariat. The end of the Cold War opened a
new era in ASEAN’s evolution. The increase in global economic
competition, due to the birth of big economic blocs as well as
the participation of ex-communist countries, or still communist
countries, in the market economy, forced ASEAN countries to
increase their competitiveness through strengthened economic
cooperation. The large population of the ASEAN market,
especially after the expansion of its membership, also began to
be seen as a promising market. During the ASEAN Summit held
in Singapore in 1992, ASEAN agreed to form an ASEAN Free
Trade Area (AFTA) and to empower the ASEAN Secretariat,
which was now headed by an ASEAN Secretary General, to
oversee AFTA’s progress. During this third era, ASEAN started to
open accession to the TAC to countries outside Southeast Asia so
that they could also follow the regional code of conduct. Another
important achievement in furthering regional security was the
ASEAN agreement to make Southeast Asia free from nuclear
weapons through the South East Asian Nuclear Weapons Free
Zone (SEANWFZ) treaty which was signed in 1995. ASEAN
also became more confident in playing the role of promoter
of regional peace and stability more widely by convening the
ASEAN Regional Forum, the first multilateral forum in the Asia
Pacific region that discussed regional security issues.
The aspiration of ASEAN founders that envisioned a
regional association covering all Southeast Asian nations was
accomplished by the inclusion of Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and
lastly Cambodia into ASEAN, even though Laos and Vietnam are
still communist countries. This was made possible because the
basic principles of ASEAN as explained above did not require
its member states to follow a particular political or economic
system. This is different with the European Union whereby there
are requirements for members to follow a democratic system of
government and to respect human rights. The inclusion of the
communist Southeast Asia nations that had originally conflicted
with the ASEAN’s founding members clearly enhanced peace
and stability in the region because they accepted the principles
and norms of inter-state interactions that ASEAN had developed.
Yet, at the same time, the increased diversity also made reaching
a consensus more complicated when ASEAN wanted to boost
the scope of cooperation or regional institutions so as to be more
effective in facing new challenges.
IV. 2003-Present
The fourth phase in ASEAN’s evolution started from 2003
and continues today. The ASEAN Summit that was held in
Bali in October 2003 resulted in the Declaration of ASEAN
Concord II (Bali Concord II) which agreed upon the formation
of an ASEAN Community (AC) with three pillars comprising
the ASEAN Political and Security Community (APSC), the
ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and the ASEAN Social
and Cultural Community (ASCC), which would be established
in 2020. This target was then moved forward, so that the AEC
effectively began on January 1st 2016. The agreement to form
the AC was a significant transformation in ASEAN’s character,
although there still does not exist the desire to make ASEAN
into a supranational organization with binding powers ala the
European Union.
Indonesia had a key role in pushing for the establishment of the
AC, particularly the APSC. Through the formation of the AC,
ASEAN wants to transform from a loose association which
only involved the governments into a regional organization that
involved the whole of ASEAN’s society. ASEAN’s foundations
were also strengthened through the agreement of the ASEAN
Charter in 2007 and effective after all members had ratified it
by 2008. The ASEAN Charter acts as ASEAN’s constitutional
basis and for the first time also gave ASEAN a legal personality.
Although the ASEAN Charter, which was ultimately agreed
on after tough negotiations, did not have provisions regarding
sanctions were there to be any violations of the main principles
within the Charter, ASEAN has changed from a dependent
variable into an independent variable that has its own dynamics.
The agreements and rules made by ASEAN started to determine
policies as well as the behaviour of its member states so that it
is not easy anymore for its members to completely ignore them.
The agreement to build the AC with three mutually reinforcing
pillars surely will widen and deepen the scope of regional
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 19
cooperation towards regional integration. The formation of the
AEC in particular demands the coherence of national policies
with regional targets which requires faster policy-making as
well as strengthening the role of the ASEAN Secretariat. To
accelerate the achievement of economic cooperation goals,
ASEAN countries have agreed to loosen the principle of decision-
making by consensus to a 10-X formula. Aside from the hope of
advancing economic growth and the comprehensive prosperity
of its members, the successful implementation of the AC with
its three pillars will surely enhance functional linkages and
create a significant complex interdependence between ASEAN
members. This will give a strong foundation for the formation of
a sustainable security community in Southeast Asia so that it is
not dependent on the changing political impulses of its members
from time to time.
The concept of a security community was originally used by Karl
Deutsch to explain the direction of Western European regional
integration, referring to the situation in which armed open
conflicts between countries in the region become impossibility.
Inter-state disputes that in the past frequently led to wars are
transformed into administrative, diplomatic, or legal issues which
could be resolved peacefully. Although it is not yet able to build
strong functional linkages, ASEAN has proven that it can create
a security community as the region has been freed from armed
conflict between countries. Yet, the security community achieved
in Southeast Asia is still far from ideal as there are still many
potential for bilateral conflicts, such as overlapping territorial
claims, which have yet to be completely resolved.
20 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA
So far, ASEAN has only acted to defuse conflicts but has yet
to function in helping to resolve conflicts. ASEAN countries
still prefer a bilateral approach, and, if needed through the
International Court of Justice, to resolve bilateral disputes rather
than using ASEAN’s conflict resolution mechanisms. This shows
a lack of trust towards the regional institution in resolving intra-
ASEAN conflicts.
The formation of the APSC is aimed at enhancing regional
partnership in political and security matters so as to increase
ASEAN’s ability to face challenges and threats to security, be
they traditional or non-traditional threats. The rise of transnational
threats requires policies and collective action because it would
be difficult for a country to handle it alone. The APSC is also
aimed at augmenting the strategic autonomy of the Southeast
Asian region in managing the regional order primarily against
the interest of large countries from outside the region. To avoid
the hegemony by one or two large countries in the strategic
environment of Southeast Asia, ASEAN has tried to push for
the formation of a new regional architecture that is inclusive and
involves all stakeholders. In 2005, ASEAN succeeded in starting
an annual high level East Asian Summit which now involves all
the major countries of the Asia Pacific to discuss the many crucial
issues that arise.
Another important element in the development of the APSC was
the inclusion of universal values such as democracy and human
rights into ASEAN as was emphasized by the ASEAN Charter.
This is linked to the growing view in some parts of ASEAN
that the security community not only requires for peace among
countries, but also peace within each member state. The many
internal conflicts and violence that transpires within ASEAN
nations, including violence carried out by the state, is still a threat
to regional security and stability. An inclusive and participatory
political system as well as a respect for human rights is deemed
important in fostering a substantial and comprehensive security
community.

The birth of the APSC concept was driven by Indonesia when

it was ASEAN’s chair in 2003 and reflected the changes
in Indonesia’s domestic politics since the beginning of the
reformation era. Indonesia envisioned that aside from pushing
for economic integration, the AC must also have shared values
which would nurture the whole of the ASEAN community, which
include respect for democratic values and human rights. Yet, the
implementation of the APSC faced many challenges because
broaching the issues of democracy and human rights, which
are domestic issues, into the ASEAN forum is still hindered by
the principle of not intervening in the domestic affairs of other
member states.

Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 21

Conclusion

22 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA ASEAN Heads of State/Government

Source: Wikimedia Commons
F
rom the above discussion, a glimpse can be seen
of ASEAN’s 50 years of evolution from a loose
regional association into the ever more integrated
regional organization that is seen today. Aside from
its many limitations, ASEAN has played a key role in
maintaining security, peace, and stability in Southeast Asia so as
to form a security community. ASEAN has also played a crucial
role in fostering good relations with the major powers, whether in
developing regional strategic autonomy or as the main driver in
shaping a wider regional architecture.
For Indonesia in particular, ASEAN has many strategic functions
that far exceeds the functions of any other organizations in which
Indonesia is a member, thus making ASEAN the cornerstone
of Indonesian foreign policy. It must also be underlined that
Indonesia is the natural leader of ASEAN and plays the main
role in the evolution of ASEAN from a loose association to an
ASEAN Community. Important documents which became the
main foundation for regional cooperation, the Bali Concord
I and Bali Concord II, were agreed upon when Indonesia was
ASEAN’s chair.
However, lately there have been criticisms that ASEAN is unable
to address various new challenges, whether they come from
within or outside the region. This is actually a reflection of the
high expectation that some have for ASEAN. Challenges from
within are, among others, the disappointment many feel over
the inability of ASEAN to take a stance, let alone meaningful
action, when an ASEAN member state violates the principles
of democracy and human rights which clearly goes against the
ASEAN Charter. This fact makes many parties, particularly those
in civil society, sceptical towards ASEAN. ASEAN’s ability to
face external challenges, especially from the rise of the PRC
and an increasingly uncertain geopolitical condition, is also
questioned; particularly when failure to reach consensus hampers
ASEAN in making strategic decisions.
The potential for conflict in the South China Sea, where there
are overlapping territorial claims between the PRC, Brunei, the
Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam, has emerged as the
main regional security issue. ASEAN has succeeded in making
the issue of the South China Sea into a regional issue and invited
the PRC to jointly agree on the “Declaration of Conduct (DoC)
of Parties on the South China Sea” in 2002 which prohibits the
use of threats or military force as well as encouraging the use
of peaceful means in order to maintain security and stability in
the region. ASEAN is also in the midst of prompting the PRC to
agree to a more binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.
Yet, the increasingly assertive policy of the PRC in maintaining
its claim towards the whole of the South China Sea has created
tensions with other member states as well as being seen as a threat
to the wider regional stability and security. The South China
Sea issue also has the potential to reduce the cohesiveness and
effectiveness of ASEAN when there are ASEAN members that
have deferred to the PRC’s pressure which may make consensus-
making in ASEAN impossible. This has already happened in the
2012 ASEAN Summit when then host Cambodia, under pressure
Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 23
from the PRC, prevented the South China Sea issue from being
included in the draft of the Joint Communiqué, so that for the first
time in history, ASEAN failed to issue a Joint Communiqué.
Is the 50th year of ASEAN the end of the 4th phase and is there
a need to start thinking of the development of institutions and
mechanisms for the next period? This issue must discussed
seriously by ASEAN practitioners and observers so that the
organization can still be relied upon to be the main determinant
of Southeast Asian regional order and its surrounding region
in the coming years. ASEAN is faced with difficult questions,
among them how to further the values of democracy and human
rights in Southeast Asia more consistently and seriously, while
maintaining the principle of non-intervention as a basic ASEAN
principle, as it is also the key to maintaining peace and stability
in the region.
Yet it must also be asked whether removing the consensus
principle in politics and security matters, which are “high
politics” and related to the core interests of a nation that are
often not negotiable, will truly strengthen ASEAN or not? What
would happen if Indonesia had a different view from all the other
ASEAN members on an issue it feels strongly about on principle,
but because consensus is no longer needed, ASEAN can still
make a decision with majority-rule that overrides Indonesia’s
objections? The case of Britain’s exit from the European Union
because many of its citizens felt that their national interest was
not protected in the European Union must surely be considered
when talking about the future of ASEAN. ASEAN at the age of
50 seems to be at a crossroads and it is our shared responsibility
to think about the right alternatives that can act as the foundation
for ASEAN’s development in the coming 50 years.

Another important question is whether it is time for ASEAN to

reevaluate the principle of consensus in decision-making in the
realms of politics and security, which have given veto rights to all
members, so that important decisions that ASEAN must take are
not held hostage by one dissenting member? There are already
those that have suggested that a more flexible sort of consensus
should be taken in the realms of politics and security, similar to
that in the economic realm that uses the 10-X formula, because
the credibility of ASEAN will diminish if it too often fails to
reach an agreement on strategic issues.

24 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA

It must also be underlined
that Indonesia is the
natural leader of ASEAN
and plays the main role in
the evolution of ASEAN
from a loose association to
an ASEAN Community.

Indonesia, ASEAN, and Regional Stability 25

Prof. Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, M.A.
Prof. Dr. Dewi Fortuna Anwar, M.A. is the Chair of the Institute
for Democracy and Human Rights at The Habibie Center. She is
also Deputy for Government Policy Support to the Vice President
of the Republic of Indonesia. Besides that, she is a Research
Professor and held the position of the Deputy Chairman for
Social Sciences and Humanities at The Indonesian Institute of
Sciences (LIPI) from 2001-2010. She obtained her Ph.D from
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

26 Inaugural Lecture AIPI-DFA Portrait of Dewi Fortuna Anwar

Credit: Christine Gneuss
The Habibie Center
Jl. Kemang Selatan No.98,
Jakarta Selatan 12560, Indonesia
(P.) 62 21 781 7211
(F.) 62 21 781 7212
www.habibiecenter.or.id
www.thcasean.org

Our social media

Facebook : The Habibie Center
Twitter : @habibiecenter
Instagram : @habibiecenter