Category Blog KIKE

RUSSIA INTEREST IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT
https://www.bbc.com, 6/10/2020

Writer: Hendra Manurung is a doctoral candidate in international relations at Padjadjaran University, Bandung, West Java

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a territorial dispute and is also can be categorized as an ethnic conflict involving Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. It is de facto ruled by the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic but is internationally recognized as part of the territory of Azerbaijan.

The Caucasus is a mountainous region of strategic importance in Southeastern Europe. Over the centuries various forces in the region, both orthodox Christians and Muslims, have competed for control there. Modern Armenia and Azerbaijan were part of the Soviet Union when it was formed in the 1920s. Nagorno-Karabakh is an ethnic Armenian majority area, but the Soviets gave control of the territory to the Azerbaijani authorities.

https://www.bbc.com, 10/11/2020

Historically, on February 20, 1988, the Council of Deputies of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO), predominantly populated by Armenians, appealed to the leadership of the USSR (in Moscow), Armenian SSR, and Azerbaijan SSR with a request to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia (Kommersant.ru, 27/9/2020). The Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee refused, which led to mass protests in Yerevan and Stepanakert, as well as to pogroms among both the Armenian and Azerbaijani population.

However, in December 1989, the authorities of the Armenian SSR and NKAO signed a joint decree on the inclusion of the region in Armenia, to which Azerbaijan responded with artillery shelling of the Karabakh border. In January 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR declared a state of emergency in the conflict zone.

It was only after the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late 1980s that the regional parliament in Nagorno-Karabakh formally elected to join Armenia.

Azerbaijan government, meanwhile, at that time tried to suppress the movement that wanted Nagorno-Karabakh to become part of Armenia. On the other hand, Armenia supports the group. This split situation eventually led to widespread inter-ethnic clashes. After Armenia and Azerbaijan declared independence at the end of the 1980s from the Soviet Union, an open war just broke out between the two countries.

In the late 1980s, both Armenia and Azerbaijan spun loose from Moscow’s yoke. Amid the chaos of the Soviet collapse, the ethnically Armenian Karabakh region attempted to break from Azerbaijani control. The ensuing war cost more than 30,000 lives and millions of people flee from their home-town.

During a virtual National Webinar held by AlMuslim University, Bireun Aceh on December 22, 2020 (Tuesday), with the theme: ‘Azerbaijan and Armenia Conflict: Political Development, Policy Priorities, and Choice for Peace’, Mr. Fauzi, Head of International Relations Department, started the event by conveying the need for a sustainable peace process by Azerbaijan and Armenia government in Central Asia.

While, Hendra Manurung stated that, the major hotspot of the dispute located in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which Azerbaijan claims as to their national sovereign territory, has so far been controlled and monitored by separatist ethnic Armenians. These two countries were involved in bloody wars in the late 1980s and early 1990s (1988-1994). Up to the first week of November 2020, open conflict still has continued to spark a continuous armed war.

This inter-state conflict should be localized by Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Russia without involving other regional major power interventions such as Turkey, France, and Iran. It is also confirmed by Adri Patria.

Further, in late April to early May 1991, Operation Ring was carried out in NKAO by the forces of Azerbaijan OMON and USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs troops. Within three weeks, the Armenian population of 24 Karabakh villages was deported. It is more than 100 people were killed. The forces of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Soviet army carried out actions to disarm the participants in the clashes until August 1991, when a putsch began in Moscow, which led to the collapse of the USSR.

On September 2, 1991, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was proclaimed in Stepanakert. Baku’s Official government recognized this act as illegal. During the outbreak of the war between Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Armenia supporting it, the sides lost from 15 thousand to 25 thousand people killed, more than 25 thousand were injured, hundreds of thousands of civilians left their places of residence. From April to November 1993, the UN Security Council adopted four resolutions demanding a ceasefire in the region.

Tens of thousands of people died in open warfare. About one million people were forced to flee. The two sides are suspected of committing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Most of the refugees in the war were Azerbaijanis.

The Armenian army controlled Nagorno-Karabakh before a Russian-mediated ceasefire was agreed upon in 1994. After the deal, Nagorno-Karabakh remained part of Azerbaijan. However, the territory was controlled by Armenian separatists who declared a separate and autonomous republic. The Armenian government in Yerevan has publicly supported the Nagorno-Karabakh declaration of independence. The ceasefire agreement also contained the Nagorno-Karabakh Contact Line. Its aim was to separate the Armenian and Azerbaijani forces.

On May 5, 1994, the three parties signed an armistice agreement, as a result of which Azerbaijan actually lost control over Nagorno-Karabakh. While Baku official government still considers the region to be occupied territory.

Nagorno-Karabakh region is part of Azerbaijan, but the majority of the region’s population has an Armenian ethnic background. But when some members of the Soviet Union challenged their independence in the 1980s, Nagorno-Karabakh citizens also chose to join Armenia. This decision sparked a conflict that only ended with a ceasefire in 1994. At the end of the conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh remained part of Azerbaijan but was controlled by ethnic Armenian separatists supported by the Armenian government.

Since the ceasefire peace talks have been continuously explored by the Minsk Group’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). It is a body formed in 1992, chaired by France, Russia, and the United States.

As consequence, peace negotiations initiated and mediated by influential countries in the world in the Minsk group such as France, Russia, and the US also failed to be agreed upon amongst conflicting countries.

The conflict was further complicated by the regional geopolitical situation. NATO member state Turkey was the first country to recognize Azerbaijan’s independence in 1991.

Armenia is a predominantly Orthodox Christian country. Meanwhile, the biggest religion in Azerbaijan is Islam. Turkey has close relations with Azerbaijan, while Russia is allied with Armenia, although Russia also has good relations with Azerbaijan.

Obviously, bloody clashes continued. Serious upheaval in 2016 killed dozens of soldiers, both Armenian and Azerbaijani.

Azeri Heydar Aliyev, former President of Turkey once described his country and Azerbaijan as “one nation-two countries”. Both countries have a culture and are inhabited by citizens of Turkish nationality. Turkey does not have official relations with Armenia. In 1993, Turkey closed its border with Armenia.

Therefore, Ankara’s policy is to show their full support for the Azerbaijan government during the war in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

So far, Armenia has been on good terms with Russia, where Russia has a military base in Armenia. The two countries are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) military alliance.

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, also has close ties with Azerbaijan. In 2018, there was a peaceful revolution in Armenia when the regime led by Serzh Sargsyan collapsed. The leader of the pro-revolution group, Nikol Pashinyan, was elected Prime Minister of Armenia after the 2018 elections. Pashinyan then agreed with the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, to reduce the escalation of tensions in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They created the first military contact center which was planned to bridge the differences in the interests of the two countries.

In 2019, Armenia and Azerbaijan jointly stated the need to take concrete steps to prepare the population for peace. However this year, for several months tensions between the two countries have increased. There was also intense armed fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is not clear who started the conflict last July. The events of that month took casualties on both sides. The battles for Armenia and Azerbaijan ended this November when they agreed to sign a peace deal that was mediated by Russia.

Based on that document, Azerbaijan will defend some of the areas it controlled during the conflict. As for Armenia, it will withdraw troops from several areas adjacent to the region.

The most serious clashes since July 2020 took place in the zone of the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation on September 27. Azerbaijani Defense Ministry stated that the Armenian armed forces fired at the positions of the Azerbaijani army “along the entire front line”. In response, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that the Azerbaijani military had launched the attack.

Furthermore, on 10 November 2020, a peace agreement was concluded by Armenia and Azerbaijan, mediated by Russian President, Vladimir Putin. These two countries are splits of the Soviet Union which during the last few months were involved in military disputes, from July to early November 2020. The war has killed thousands of people, forced thousands of others to flee, and lost personal property such as houses and apartments.

On that date, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, and President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin stated that A complete ceasefire and termination of all hostilities in the area of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is declared.

Post peace deal agreement signing on November 10, 2020, Kremlin decides that the Russian government will deploy its peacemaking forces, consist of 1,960 troops armed with firearms, 90 armored vehicles, and 380 motor vehicles and units of special equipment, shall be deployed along the contact line in Nagorno-Karabakh and along the Lachin Corridor.

As agreed by Azerbaijan and Armenia, thus, within the next three years, a constructive plan will be outlined for the construction of a new route via the Lachin Corridor, to provide a connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, and the Russian peacemaking forces shall be subsequently relocated to protect the route.

Sooner or later, Russian peacemaking forces will be deployed concurrently with the withdrawal of the Armenian troops. The peacemaking forces of the Russian Federation will be deployed for five years, a term to be automatically extended for subsequent five-year terms unless either Party notifies about its intention to terminate this clause six months before the expiration of the current term.

It will be followed with more efficient monitoring of the Parties’ fulfillment of the Agreements such a Peacemaking Center will be established to oversee the ceasefire process.

It is concluded, the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh is a throwback to the death-throes of the Soviet Union.

In South Caucasus, for 32 years, Russia secured a truce but unfortunately failed to secure the regional peace and stability, which is well-known as Russian ‘backyard’ geopolitics interest in Central Asia and Southeast Europe.

RESETTING EU – US RELATIONS?

Writer: Muhadi Sugiono, UGM

The post-presidential election drama continues in the US. Despite the confirmation by the Electoral College of Joe Biden’s victory, Donald Trump remains reluctant to admit his defeat. Instead of congratulating the winner, Trump keeps on contesting the election result. Undeterred by the failure of his previous legal battle with the rejection of his lawsuit by the Supreme Court, he continues to contest the election result by filing a new lawsuit.

The world is watching the development in the US very carefully. The EU is no exception. Who will be the US president is particularly important for the EU. EU – US relations are at the lowest ebb under Trump’s administration. No doubt, the relations between the EU and the US were not always very smooth. But, the previous US presidents kept on treating the EU with respect or saw the EU as an important and valuable partner. Donald Trump, on the other hand, tended to disregard the EU. He looked at the EU with disdain and did not see it as relevant for the US. For the EU, therefore, the next US president will determine whether the relationship between the EU and the US will improve or otherwise worsen.

“I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade.” (CBC News)

The election of Joe Biden as the US President undoubtedly gives new hope for the EU to improve its relations with the US. The new President constitutes an opportunity for the EU to reset its transatlantic relations. But, a daunting task lies ahead given the damages that Trump’s administration has done to transatlantic relations.

One of the most important characters in Trump’s administration has been the distrust of multilateralism. The distrust of multilateralism had significant impacts on international cooperation such as setbacks in the free trade agreements, in the climate change negotiation as well as in the combating of global pandemic Covid-19. Trump’s tendency towards unilateralism was also manifested in his direct confrontational stands against China and the questioning of the transatlantic alliance (NATO). At the same time, the populism of President Trump has led to the adoption of various polarising policies. Trump disrespected women and minorities, was tolerant of the authoritarian governments and had no interest in combating global poverty and in development. In addition, Trump’s response to Brexit was a big disappointment for the EU. While the EU and the UK were in the negotiating process to settle the consequences of Brexit, Trump without considering that the UK was during this process still an EU member and was tied to obligations as a member, expressed his willingness to conclude trade bilateral agreement with the UK. Trump expressed this willingness even before he was inaugurated as the US President.

All those characteristics which the US under Trump has brought about are in contradiction to the EU vision as reflected in the EU Global Strategy. The EU Global Strategy envisions a multilateral world order based on rule of law, common values, and interests. As such, the EU Global Strategy does not only reflect the EU’s core interest and principles but also guides the EU in relations to the wider world.

Resetting the transatlantic relations for the EU does not only mean to repair the damaged transatlantic relations but also to bring back the commitment of the US as an important EU partner in building a world based on multilateralism and global interest and norms. In addition, it becomes an urgent need for the EU as Europe is facing a more challenging security environment with the more confident Russia under Putin, uncertainty on Turkey as well as continuing threat of terrorism as a result of the conflicts in the region close to Europe.

But while it has been almost certain that Joe Biden will be the next US president, the reset button cannot work properly until the election drama ends.

INDONESIA-VIETNAM RELATIONS: CHALLENGE TO SE ASIA STABILITY
Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Retno L.P Marsudi met Vietnam Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pham Binh Minh (Dec.23, 2019) Source: kemlu.go.id

Writer: Hendra Manurung is currently doctor candidate in international relations at Padjadjaran University, Bandung, West Java

During the Cold War era which involves the Soviet Union and the United States, Indonesia and Vietnam officially established diplomatic relations on 30 December 1955 with the opening of the Indonesian Consulate in Hanoi which was later upgraded to the Embassy on 10 August 1964.

President Ho Chi Minh and President Soekarno are two leaders who have laid the foundations for friendly relations between Vietnam and Indonesia. In its 65-year history, this relationship has been maintained and developed by generations of leaders and the people of the two countries to this day. In the midst of the rivalry between the US and China in the South China Sea region, the two countries in Southeast Asia need to continuously optimize efforts to maintain and develop strategic relations in the region.

Indonesia’s relations with Vietnam began in 1955. At that time, Mr. Soedibjo Wirjowerdojo is the first Consul General of the Republic of Indonesia who was appointed and assigned a diplomatic tour of duty to occupy a pioneering representative post at the Consulate General of the Republic of Indonesia for Vietnam which is still domiciled in Hanoi.

Vietnam and Indonesia are members of ASEAN. Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri visited Vietnam in June 2003. At this time the two countries signed a “Declaration on a Framework for Friendly and Comprehensive Cooperation Entering the 21st Century”.

In May 2005, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visited Hanoi, Vietnam. And in December of the same year celebrations were held in the respective capitals to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

In April 2015, the Prime Minister of Vietnam, Truong Tang San expressed his appreciation to the Indonesian government for organizing the 60th Asia Africa Summit Leaders Meeting. It is due to the political and economic benefits that were not only felt by the Asia Africa region but also experienced by the international community.

Vietnam hopes to increase and strengthen defense cooperation with Indonesia, especially in the provision of joint military training, transfer of military technology, and joint marine patrols.

Regarding maritime issues, Vietnam is optimistic about the prospect of negotiations with Indonesia. It is ensured that through continuous negotiations regarding maritime borders between the two countries so far has been going well, and will reach an agreement that affirms each other’s territorial sovereignty.

Meanwhile, President Joko Widodo conveyed Indonesia’s commitment in overcoming the problem of illegal fishing, that this problem is a joint problem between Indonesia and Vietnam that must be resolved immediately.

Further, in October 2018, Indonesia and Vietnam also agreed to strengthen cooperation on economy, trade, and investment. Indonesia and Vietnam have intensified their bilateral cooperation in recent times. This reflects the high intensity of bilateral relations based on the Strategic Partnership of Indonesia and Vietnam in the Southeast Asia region, increasing bilateral trade, strengthening cooperation in a number of other fields such as negotiations on the exclusive economic zones of each country, eradicating illegal fishing, and cooperation to advance ASEAN, and enhance cooperation in both countries maritime sectors.

Jakarta appreciates the assistance of the Vietnamese government for barriers to Indonesia’s automotive exports to Vietnam.

Indonesian entrepreneurs should optimize new Vietnamese markets, particularly among others in relation to trade-economic cooperation of pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

In the next 10 to 20 years, the increasing bilateral economic trade and investment relations between the two countries will benefit both parties in the future.

Jakarta and Hanoi also emphasized their position on the importance of maintaining a conducive situation in the South China Sea region, amidst Beijing’s nine-dash line claims that did not respect the 1982 UNCLOS.

Thus, regarding the South China Sea issue, Indonesia is willing to act as an honest broker by adhering to the Declaration of Conduct (DoC) and Code of Conduct (CoC) initiated by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

In 2020, Viet Nam and Indonesia will both become non-permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The two neighboring countries in Southeast Asia need to boost political economy cooperation as well as strengthen both contributions to stability and peace in the region and globally, especially in response to the escalation of tensions related to the possibility of open conflict in the South China Sea region involving the US and China in the near future.

Furthermore, these two countries are strategic partners and agree to continue to push for the implementation of the Plan of Action for the period from 2019 to 2023, especially economic cooperation, increase bilateral trade, investment, progress in the field of air-connectivity, and finalize Exclusive Economic Zone negotiations.

Meanwhile, Indonesia supports ASEAN as a regional organization present in Southeast Asia to continue to advance the issue of women’s rights, peace, security, and the latest developments Rakhine State as one of the priorities for Vietnam’s chairmanship in 2020.

ASEAN needs to increase its role in helping solve the Rakhine State problem, including accelerating the repatriation process of refugees from Bangladesh in a voluntary, safe, and dignified manner. Both welcomed the involvement of ASEAN representatives in the Second High-Level Visit, from 17 to 20 December 2020 at Cox’s Bazaar.

It is also necessary to prioritize the review of the terms of reference of the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights to achieve a balanced mandate between the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.

Apart from the importance of continuing ASEAN and Chinese negotiations regarding the progress of the Code of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (COC), which in 2020 will continue a second reading. The two countries agreed to emphasize that the COC must be substantive, effective, and implementable to create an area that is conducive to territorial dispute resolution.

To conclude, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, this strategic partnership relationship between Vietnam and Indonesia must be maintained and it is ensured that it will develop faster and stronger for the sake of the national interests of the two countries, as well as maintaining regional peace, stability, and prosperity in the Southeast Asia and the South China Sea regions.

INDONESIA SOFT POWER: TOBA CALDERA AS UNESCO GLOBAL GEOPARK 2020

Writer: 1. Hendra Manurung, 2. Elvinro Sinabariba

1. International Relations, Padjadjaran University

2. State Senior High School Number 1 Pangururan, Samosir

1. hendra19001@mail.unpad.ac.id,

2. elvinrosnb@yahoo.co.id

Abstract: This research aims to describe analytically Toba Caldera’s ability to become one of the UNESCO Global Geopark in 2020. The research used a qualitative research method and is done through literature studies, government documents, and internet sources. Researchers founded, there are inter-linkages amongst Indonesia’s central and local government together with stakeholders’ continuous contribution who concern with Toba Caldera’s sustainable tourism development. Those concerning parties fought for Toba Caldera’s recognition status as the UNESCO Global Geopark. From 2011 to 2020, for nine years, the Toba Caldera was finally named a UNESCO Global Geopark during the UN Cultural Body’s 209th Plenary Session held in Paris on July 7, 2020. Toba Caldera Geopark was a worldwide tourist magnet as it was home to 13 sites with breathtaking views, namely: Tongging Sipiso-Piso, Silalahi Sabungan, Haranggaol, Sibaganding Parapat, Eden Park, Balige Liong Spige Meat, Situmurun Blok Uluan, Hutaginjang, Muara Sibandang, Sipinsur Bakti Raja, Bakara Tipang, Tele Pangururan, and Pusuk Buhit. A ceremony where the UNESCO Global Geopark placard will be formally given to the Toba caldera is slated to be held in Jeju, South Korea, by September 2020. According to a statement from the Indonesian Embassy in Paris, Toba Caldera is among the 16 new UNESCO Global Geoparks announced by the organization’s executive board. North Sumatra provincial administration is hopeful that the recognition will help boost foreign tourist arrivals to the destination.

Keywords: Toba caldera, UNESCO, Indonesia soft power, sustainable tourism development, tourist destination

Download the full version of the articles at this link: 2140-Article Text-8475-1-10-20201208

Indonesia-North Korea Diplomatic Relations: Effort to Pursue National Interest and Create Regional Peace

Indonesia-North Korea Diplomatic Relations: Effort to Pursue National Interest and Create Regional Peace

Writer: Hendra Manurung Mahasiswa Doktoral Hubungan Internasional, Universitas Padjajaran email: hendra19001@mail.unpad.ac.id

Direvisi: 14 Agustus 2020 Disetujui: 15 September 2020 doi: 10.22212/jp.v11i2.1466

Abstract: This article aims to analyze the implementation of Indonesia’s foreign policy towards North Korea over its approximately fifty-nine years of bilateral relations, since 17 June 1961. The arguments posited in this regard is that the implementation of Indonesia’s foreign policy towards North Korea has been counterproductive. Under the leadership of President Joko Widodo, Indonesia actually has great potential to influence North Korea’s conducts through the close diplomatic relations that the two countries have developed. The friendship between Indonesia and North Korea began since the two states conducted reciprocal official visits 1964 and 1965. Indonesia’s foreign policy towards South Korea has often been carried out to influence the offensive decisions of North Korean leaders, especially in relation to the issue of nuclear weapon development. The key question is what should and can Indonesia do next to help create peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula by adhering to the principles of a free and active foreign policy? Why is it necessary for Indonesia to do this and how can Indonesia carry out this foreign policy towards North Korea? After becoming President since 2011, Kim Jong-un had to weaken his father’s winning coalition to consolidate domestic political stability. However, North Korea’s domestic market reforms have had the effect of eroding the Kim family’s ideological appeal. This is relevant to the expansion of political influence from Pyongyang, which prioritizes the continuation of a fragile centralized authoritarian power while maintaining sustainable domestic economic growth. Keywords: Indonesia; North Korea; Foreign Policy; Denuclearization; Regional Stability.

Hubungan Diplomatik Indonesia – Korea Utara: Upaya Mewujudkan Kepentingan Nasional dan Menciptakan Perdamaian Regional

Abstrak: Artikel ini bertujuan menjelaskan secara analitis bagaimana implementasi kebijakan luar negeri Indonesia terhadap Korea Utara selama 59 tahun sejak 17 Juni 1961. Argumen yang ingin disampaikan terkait implementasi kebijakan luar negeri Indonesia terhadap Korea Utara adalah kontraproduktif. Indonesia di bawah kepemimpinan Presiden Joko Widodo berpotensi besar untuk mampu memengaruhi perilaku Korea Utara melalui hubungan diplomatik. Persahabatan Indonesia dan Korea Utara dimulai sejak saling kunjung di 1964 dan 1965. Orientasi politik luar negeri Indonesia di masa lalu hingga saat ini, telah sering dilakukan untuk memengaruhi keputusan ofensif para pemimpin Korea Utara, khususnya terkait dengan isu pengembangan senjata nuklir. Pertanyaannya adalah apa yang harus dan sebaiknya dilakukan Indonesia selanjutnya untuk membantu menciptakan perdamaian dan stabilitas di Semenanjung Korea dengan tetap berpegang pada prinsip politik luar negeri bebas dan aktif? Mengapa hal tersebut perlu dilakukan oleh Indonesia dan bagaimana cara menjalankan kebijakan luar negeri terhadap Korea Utara tersebut? Kim Jong-un, setelah menjadi Presiden sejak 2011, harus melemahkan posisi koalisi pemenang ayahnya untuk konsolidasi stabilitas politik dalam negeri. Bagaimanapun, reformasi pasar domestik Korea Utara telah berdampak pada pengikisan daya tarik ideologis keluarga Kim. Hal ini relevan dengan perluasan pengaruh politik dari Pyongyang memprioritaskan pada keberlangsungan kekuatan otoriter terpusat yang rentan seiring bagaimana dapat mempertahankan pertumbuhan ekonomi dalam negeri berkelanjutan. Kata kunci: Indonesia; Korea Utara; Kebijakan Luar Negeri; Denuklirisasi; Stabilitas Kawasan

Download the full version of this article in this link: 2020 Indonesia-North Korea Diplomatic Relations

THE FUTURE OF EU – UK TRADE RELATIONS
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Writer: Hendra Manurung, is doctoral candidate in international relations at Padjadjaran University, Bandung

The European Union and the United Kingdom continue to break the deadlock in trade negotiations due to the particular subject matter locked. If there is no agreement, their relationship deteriorated.

The future of trade relations between the UK and the European Union is not getting better. This is because several rounds of negotiations to direct telecommunications between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have not been able to bridge the differences in perspective between the two sides. It is mainly related to the standard issue of export and import goods, fishing rights, and the issue of dispute resolution or legal disputes between both sides.

Further, another thing that also complicates the field situation is the plan of Paris against every clause of the EU treaty and the UK which is considered to sacrifice French fishermen and its national fisheries sectors.

In early September 2020, the British Government asked the European Union to take a stand on trade deals after Brexit. According to Boris Johnson, if there is no agreement or agreement then there is no free trade and it must be accepted by all parties.

Britain has officially left the European Union on January 31, 2020. According to Johnson, it doesn’t matter if the relationship between Britain and the European Union can be like Australia, where the two countries combine WTO rules with specific agreements for certain products.

Apart from the positive influences that Britain and member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations have had due to Britain’s membership in the European Union, in fact, there are still those who think that Britain’s membership in the European Union only limits Britain’s space for movement, especially in terms of trade interactions with other countries including with fellow members of the Commonwealth of Nations. These parties consider the European Union too restrictive to Britain, with many regulations that must be met.

This is the reason for the emergence of the term Brexit. The term Brexit is a combination of Britain and exit policy. The meaning of this term is a call for Great Britain to leave the European Union. Debates within the United Kingdom as well as within the Commonwealth of Nations over Brexit are inevitable. Those who have felt the benefits of Britain’s membership in the European Union are certainly against the Brexit call. Meanwhile, those who feel that Britain is limited in its space and too limited by the European Union with a series of regulations made by the European Union are pro parties to the Brexit call.

In 2016, this debate led to the holding of the UK Membership Referendum in the European Union which resulted in 51.9% of voters saying they supported Britain leaving the European Union and 48.1% of voters said they expected Britain to remain a member of the European Union.

Britain, which is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations as well as a member of the European Union, acts as an ambassador for the Commonwealth of Nations in the European Union. Therefore, Britain’s membership in the European Union indirectly provides its own benefits for member states of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The relationship between the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Union is a reciprocal relationship between the two supranational institutions in the European region. These two supranational institutions have a high commitment to their member countries.

Both the European Union and the Commonwealth of Nations have always played an active role in initiating relations and forging cooperation with other countries and international organizations. Currently, both the European Union and the Commonwealth of Nations are proactively pursuing the realization of free trade agreements with their partner countries and organizations.

So far, Britain’s membership in the European Union has opened a gateway of access for countries that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations to establish good relations and cooperation with the European Union. UK membership in the European Union means that countries that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations can be represented in the European Union even though these countries are not members of the European Union.

In the trade sector, the influence of Britain’s membership in the European Union for member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations is very clear. In fact, in 2016, nearly 80% of the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations were in the process of negotiating with the European Union on trade contracts. The advantages of this trade contract are significant both for the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations and for Britain itself. Britain’s membership in the European Union makes Britain at the forefront of strengthening relations between countries that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Union. Britain is involved in efforts to initiate negotiations on a free trade agreement between the European Union and Australia and New Zealand. Britain’s membership in the European Union also allows Britain to push the EU to realize a free trade agreement with India. Clearly, Britain’s membership in the European Union makes it possible for The UK can show its consistency in fighting for access to the European Union market for developing countries, whether they are members of the Commonwealth of Nations or that are not members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

However, London targets this agreement should to be completed on 15 October 2020. In addition to and is currently preparing rules for borders, seaports, and making strict regulations issues related to the marine and fisheries sector.

Thus, it will continue with the rules regarding aviation, transportation to scientific cooperation. British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson emphasized that there are still problems to be resolved in this trade agreement, although he did not give details on the matter.

The British government implements this agreement in accordance with international law and no political games are played by London. Thus, if there is no agreement, the potential US$ 900 billion in trade transactions between Britain and Europe could enter into the abyss of uncertainty sooner or later.

At present, if there is no agreement, it is certain that the economic relations of the two sides will deteriorate and become a heavy pressure on economic business entities and citizens of the European Union in general.

If the condition of the European Union described without Britain in 2020 (Eurostat, 2020), the area of the European Union is 4.22 million km2, reduced by the UK’s territory reaching 0.25 million km2; the population of the European Union (2019) is 447 million, also reduced by 67 million people in the UK; The GDP of the European Union (2019) reached Euro 13.95 trillion, and the UK GDP reached Euro 2.52 trillion.

For twenty years (2000-2020), the UK is well-known as one of the best countries for ease of doing business and is the 6th largest economy in the world. The UK is the number one destination for foreign investment in Europe. Current rates of investment into the UK technology sector are better than those of technology superpowers such as the US and China. London has more digital tech start-ups than any other city in western, central and eastern Europe.

The future of the UK and EU relations is based on mutual trust and belief. Thus, this trust is at stake in the final settlement of the trade agreement negotiations between the two.

The most difficult problem is how to guarantee fair and sustainable trade in the future; In addition to imposing sanctions if one of the contents of the agreement experiences a setback or a deadlock, for example, related to environmental or health standards issues, it must also be a serious concern and how the settlement mechanism can be mutually agreed upon.

The European Union is much concerned that London will cut regulations that could allow British companies to weaken the business expansion of European multinational companies.

Meanwhile, after Brexit at the end of January 2020, the UK is obviously focused on expanding global trade, especially looking for new markets in other parts of the world. Indonesia must be able to utilize and strengthen the potential for economic, trade, and investment relations with the UK.

It is expected that the UK and Indonesian trade relations will remain the same. In fact, the British government believes there will be momentum opportunities to boost bilateral trade cooperation with Indonesia after the Brexit, which is certain to develop great economic, trade, and investment opportunities for Indonesia.

The situation of solving the problem between the UK and the European Union is complex, but it requires a breakthrough, willingness, and goodwill from the British Prime Minister and the leaders of influential countries in the European Union to make efforts to find the best solution for all to avoid deadlock situations and not mutually profitable for all.

INDONESIA – EUROPEAN UNION RELATIONS: INDONESIAN SUSTAINABLE PALM OIL (ISPO)
Source: https://money.kompas.com/

Writer: Hendra Manurung is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in international relations at Padjadjaran University, Bandung

Palm oil products are a national strategic product that has contributed greatly to Indonesia’s trade balance and economy amid the COVID-19 pandemic and domestic economic recession conditions.

Oil palm is one of the leading commodities that form the backbone of the national economy. This is because palm oil contributed greatly to the country’s foreign exchange, reaching the US $ 23 billion, or around IDR 320 trillion in 2019. From 1990 to the present, oil palm production is a source of annual income for rural farmers who are scattered throughout Indonesia.

Until the end of 2020, unfortunately, discrimination against the Indonesian oil palm plantation industry and its derivative products was still carried out by a number of anti-palm oil supporters, especially those from European Union countries.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno L.P Marsudi stated clearly that the discriminatory actions of the European Union are very contrary to the principles of partnership and collaboration that Indonesia has upheld so far.

Indonesia has always put forward cooperation and emphasized collaboration with various partner countries, but when it comes to national interests, the Indonesian government must be firm. Moreover when it comes to the principles and mutual understanding have been previously agreed with the European Union.

Simply, what Indonesia wants is only one, just treat us fairly.

For Jakarta, the European Union has long been a strategic partner network related to sustainable bilateral trade, where there are common views, many international issues with the European Union. Indonesia always opens communication dialogues openly and intensely. Previously, for some years, Indonesia actually already has a close partnership with the European Union.

In 2019, amidst the onslaught of the negative palm oil campaign in Norway, palm oil turned out to play an important role in achieving the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals in Indonesia. In addition, palm oil is a strategic industry for the Indonesian economy. The collective efforts of the government, business circles, and communities are considered successful in maintaining the sustainability of peat and oil palm lands.

In 2017 Norwegian Parliament issued a resolution to reduce the use of palm oil in biodiesel products circulating in Norway. On the other hand, Indonesia continues to strive for the quality of sustainable palm oil, one of which is through the biodiesel program. Indonesia is also developing technology to convert palm oil into bio-hydrocarbon fuel to produce green diesel, green gasoline, and green aviator.

Rainforest Foundation Norway, an NGO that is critical of environmental policies in Indonesia, actually appreciates the success of environmental conservation in the country recently. This achievement needs to be appreciated; however, a long-term national policy is also needed to maintain good trends in environmental conservation in Indonesia.

Over the past 6 years (2014-2020), Indonesia has succeeded in reducing forest fire hotspots. Indonesia is building a peatland monitoring system technology called the peatland restoration information and monitoring system, which is integrated, scalable, and accessible online.

Most oil palm trees are not a direct cause of deforestation of tropical rainforests in Indonesia. The drastic loss of tropical rainforests was caused by transmigration policies in the 1960s, issuance of Forest Concession Rights in the 1970s, and massive forest fires. Initially, the transmigration commodity was not oil palm, but coffee, cocoa, candlenut, pepper, and other plantation products. However, people tend to compare between past and present, but forget about the historical sequence. In fact, oil palm trees were planted and contributed to the reforestation of deforested forests in the 1980s.

Energy Company ST1 Norway claims that at least 40% of the total biofuel is used in the Nordic region. Unfortunately, deforestation has resulted in palm oil being seriously rejected in Norway. This was confirmed by Nestle Norway, which became the target of Greenpeace’s environmental campaign in 2010. Since then, Nestle has become a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and targets to use 100% certified palm products by 2020.

In fact, Indonesian oil palm farmers can meet sustainability standards based on ISPO, related to the fertilization system and the use of natural pest killers according to ISPO which has succeeded in increasing production and incomes of farmers. These oil palm farmers consider that ISPO has helped alleviate poverty, such as through assistance efforts to increase the capacity of farmers and eliminate middlemen in the sale of palm oil crops.

Further, talking about palm oil certification, it must come from the country of origin due to representative of the interests of local farmers and industry. The issuance of Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) palm certification has continued to increase from 2013 to 2018.

The negative campaign attacks were evenly distributed across countries in Europe. The perception of palm oil that continues to deteriorate in Europe is used by a number of companies as a marketing strategy. It is suspected that these companies are only taking advantage of negative palm oil campaigns to pursue profits alone, but do not contribute to biodiversity and sustainability.

The EU also encourages farmers to be more involved in the Indonesian sustainable palm oil (ISPO) scheme, due to the importance of Indonesian oil palm plantations as part of the people’s daily economy.

Indonesia has made a lot of progress in managing sustainable palm oil production, and this progress needs to be sustained in the coming decades.

Furthermore, the discrimination and double standards imposed by the EU are justified by one of the leading members of the European Parliament, Dr. Werner Langen, who is also the head of the Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and ASEAN. In his open letter, he expressed his view that palm oil that is produced sustainably should not be categorized as high risk to the environment (Indirect Land Use Change / ILUC high risk), and that the European Commission’s Delegated Act policy was pure protectionist and hypocritical (Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 27, 2019).

The Delegated Act is formulated by the European Commission and brought to the European Union Parliament for a decision. The Delegated Act is considered to be detrimental to Indonesia because it prohibits CPO from being used for fuel or biofuel. In addition, CPO is included in a high-risk commodity.

Basically, the EU does not prohibit palm oil from entering the EU market. It’s just that to meet the Renewable Energy 2030 target, the EU is committed to reducing the use of biofuels that are not environmentally friendly. Thus, to bridge this, the EU is ready for dialogue with Indonesia and other palm oil-producing countries. The statement was conveyed by David Daly from the European External Action Service (EEAS), EU Commission.

A win-win solution is needed in resolving the issue of discrimination by the EU against palm oil which will have negative implications for at least 17 million people involved in the domestic palm oil industry.

Indonesia has a commitment and consistency to continue to increase various efforts to produce sustainable palm oil and will never allow its green land to be destroyed for palm oil. Therefore, Indonesia objects to the EU’s policy through the Delegated Act which categorizes its palm oil products as a commodity that damages the surrounding environment and causes deforestation.

Indonesia and the European Union actually need each other. The investment development of both parties mutually benefits Indonesia and the European Union. In order to solve the problem of Indonesian palm oil, it is clear that relevant standards, credibility, and transparency are needed by Indonesia and the European Union.

Therefore, the issue of Indonesian crude palm oil (CPO) should not interfere with the partnership between Indonesia and the European Union which has been going well over the last 20 years.

In conclusion, Indonesia and the EU should be discussed more intensely joint efforts to improve ISPO, so that ISPO can be accepted by all EU countries that are seriously interested in buying palm oil from Indonesia.

APEC 2020 & INDONESIA IN THE MIDST OF GLOBAL PANDEMIC
https://www.apec.org/

Hendra Manurung, is currently a doctoral candidate of International Relations, Padjadjaran University, Bandung; Teuku Rezasyah is an Associate Professor of International Relations at the same university

Malaysia was assigned to host the APEC meeting in 2020, and hope the commitment of APEC leaders’ countries to the multilateral trading system. This commitment is important in order to maintain global market and financial stability so that global trade and foreign investment guarantees continue to flow in times of crisis and global economic recession.

The APEC 2020 event theme is ‘ Reimagined: Priorities in the Aftermath of COVID-19’. Indonesia, through its ministry of trade, highlights APEC contribution in the midst of a global pandemic outbreak being relevant to overcome global uncertainty in the current economy and trade outlook.

In fact, for two years in 2018 and 2019, the APEC leaders’ forum failed to reach a final agreement at the APEC leader level to overcome various global challenges.

As the host, Malaysia faces considerable challenges, namely the achievement of the Bogor Goals target which is still not as expected, it is not easy to formulate a new post-2020 APEC vision that can accommodate the interests of the entire APEC economy, and high hopes for a joint declaration at the APEC leadership level.

However, apart from the need to ensure the growth of the digital economy, it also needs a sustainable inclusive economy and the optimal use of digital platforms in financial transactions. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure and simplify cooperation between the government and the private sector in the Asia Pacific countries region.

Indonesia, China, together with a number of leaders of APEC member countries in the APEC annual meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia were held virtually to encourage a more open, transparent trade, and strengthen multilateral cooperation. It is hoped that these norms, principles, and steps will greatly support the performance of the global economy which is being severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

President Joko Widodo has prioritized the importance of developing a favorable climate for foreign investment in Indonesia and the Asia Pacific region. It is possible that the Omnibus Law will improve the business climate and support national economic growth, along with regulatory and bureaucratic reforms. This is important considering the flexibility of regulations and the dexterity of the Indonesian bureaucracy in dealing with the current difficult times so that it is ready to open the widest possible door for businessmen and investors through the application of new methods.

The Omnibus Law which massively simplifies various regulations is said to aim to create a quality business and investment climate for business actors, including micro, small and medium enterprises. Although, this decision has sparked resistance, protests, and controversy in the country, however, it is expected that this regulation will be able to reduce overlapping regulations and complicated and complex procedures. The cumbersome licensing bureaucracy was also reduced. Illegal fees that have hindered business and investment entry are eradicated.

This rule also makes it easier for MSME business actors, where they do not need to apply for a permit but simply register the type of business. The entire licensing process is integrated into an electronic system through an online single submission.

Business activities and investing are made easier and less difficult. The formation of a limited liability company is made simpler and there is no longer a minimum capital limitation. Patents and brands are also being processed accelerated. Land acquisition and optimization of land utilization for public interest and investment will be much easier.

The APEC economy is expected to become a pillar of world economic stability by focusing on equitable economic cooperation so that all levels of society can participate and enjoy economic prosperity equally. APEC’s contribution can be achieved by boosting human resources potentials. It is very important to support sustainable economic growth in member countries including Indonesia which is also in line with the vision of the central government.

Suppose Indonesia will play a proactive role as Southeast Asia leading economy in supporting the implementation of the APEC blueprint related to strengthening the global value chain for the 2020 to 2025 periods.

Indonesia’s active role is in accordance with President Joko Widodo’s direction in RPJMN 2020 to 2024 in supporting Indonesia’s economic transformation, from dependence on natural resources shifting to an economy based on manufacturing competitiveness and the provision of high-value-added modern services.

It is certain that Indonesia will cooperate closer with other pioneer countries in the world economy, such as China and the US, in designing a capacity-building program for the APEC economy to gain more benefits from the global supply chain.

It is most likely that Donald Trump will represent the US at APEC 2020 Summit. Trump’s presence will be his second participation after 2017. Trump has been criticized for being less involved in the East Asia Summit in early November as part of the 2020 ASEAN Summit activities held virtually in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to open up his domestic market more widely, actively cooperating with all countries, regions, and companies.

Xi Jinping stressed that China’s gross domestic product has reached 10,000 US dollars per year. The number of Chinese middle-class citizens currently reaches more than 400 million people. Various international agencies are projecting that the Chinese retail market in 2020 will penetrate the US $ 6 trillion.

Thus, it is certain that there will be greater demand for quality products, the use of information technology, and the standardization of service quality from around the world.

It is expected that through the signing of a regional economic comprehensive partnership (RCEP) will have an important meaning in global trade and sustainable multilateral cooperation for economic integration in the Asia and Pacific region.

Moreover, with the election of Joe Biden as the 46th US president in early November 2020, it is hoped that the US government will be more constructive and emphasize goodwill in dealing with other countries in the region without conflicting with other economic powers.

RCEP for developing countries can reduce trade barriers to agricultural products, manufactured goods, and components that make up the majority of their exported commodities.

However, the RCEP partnership is considered to have little to do with trade in services and the availability of access for various companies to operate in their respective economies, something the US and other developed countries want.

Also, it is necessary to gradually reduce tariffs and institutional costs, develop a number of import trade promotion innovation demonstration zones, and expand product imports and strengthen high-quality services in all member countries.

Most APEC countries face unprecedented times, demanding bold responses along with the world’s greatest health and economic crisis of a hundred years. For sure, these challenges demand sustaining cooperation, coordination, and collaboration actively without any left behind through market integration, creative innovation, and regional inclusion.

The crisis response remains a pressing concern in many economies, and requires an ongoing focus on ensuring access to essential medical supplies and services, including vaccine availability; keeping supply chains functioning, and avoiding fragmented policy approaches, including in the digital economy and the safe resumption of travel. These would serve to revive all business activities and market demand that would accelerate global economic recovery.

Free and open trade and investment have indeed resulted in greater prosperity within the Asia Pacific along with underscoring the fact that benefits accruing from trade and investment have not permeated across all segments of all society.

Even today, there is much room for us to improve the narrative of trade and investment with a view to bring tangible benefits to all people fairly.

To conclude, APEC’s success key is openness, cooperation, and transparency amongst member-countries to look for Asia Pacific economic recovery sooner or later.

JAPAN-AUSTRALIA DEFENSE PACT IN INDO-PACIFIC
www.idntimes.com

Hendra Manurung, is currently doctoral candidate of International Relations, Padjadjaran University, Bandung; Teuku Rezasyah is Associate Professor of International Relations at Padjadjaran University, Bandung.

It is not difficult to understand why Japan and Australia plan developing defense cooperation for some years previously. Most likely the factor of militarization and deployment of the Chinese navy since late December 2019 in the South China Sea is one of the main triggers.

The defense pact is confirmed to be Japan’s first agreement after 60 years to allow a foreign military presence on its territory, since the status of a defense agreement in 1960 with the United States, which allowed America to place warships, fighter jets, and, thousands of military troops on board, around the territory of Japan.

The challenges and risks posed to the global and regional geostrategic landscape, particularly by or under the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the dynamics in major power relations.

At present, all countries in these regions also face non-traditional challenges such as terrorism, smuggling, natural disasters, and cybercrime, which no single country can tackle and overcome on its own, have been widely considered as common concerns by policy-makers regional leaders.

Meanwhile, ASEAN as a regional organization should to be serious on responding to current regional conditions and immediately reducing escalate tensions that may arise and lead to open conflicts. After the US presidential election on November 6, 2020, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the election and will be sworn in on January 21, 2021, as the 46th US President replacing previous president, Donald Trump (45th US President, 2016-2020).

The good news of new US leadership is predicted will reduce the US and China trade war globally along with both major powers rivalries in the South China Sea and India and China border disputed conflict killed twenty and injured others, Indian soldiers, recently.

From 1967 to 2020, ASEAN as a regional organization is able to maintain regional cooperation and supposed to be remaining as the primary driving force in steering regional peace and stability to develop further as a central pillar in the evolving regional security architecture years ahead.

The defense pact between Japan and Australia was agreed upon and signed by Yoshihide Suga and Scott Morrison in Tokyo on November 17, 2020 (Kompas, 19/2/2020). The two countries have been negotiating a six-year defense agreement (2014-2020), although this agreement still needs to be ratified by both parliamentarians in Canberra and Tokyo.

This latest agreement is to facilitate more joint military operations and exercises in their respective regions. If needed in a situation of urgency, it is possible for the Japanese military to protect Australian troops and vice versa.

The pact, called the Reciprocal Access Agreement, provides a legal framework that allows troops to visit each other’s countries and conduct joint training and operations. These developments have further strengthened the defense relationship between the two US allies.

The move will also be Japan’s first agreement to include a foreign military presence on its territory since signing a troop status agreement in 1960 with the United States. Tokyo works closely with Washington D.C, enabling the US to deploy warships, fighter jets, and thousands of troops in and around Japan as part of a military alliance on a regional security home-base.

It is implemented by deploying around fifty thousand US soldiers and its 7th fleet armada. Perhaps, Australia also might be able to send two thousand to five thousand military troops, warships, and frigates to securing Japanese territories.

Japan and Australia previously established defense cooperation in 2007, a first for Japan with a country other than the US. Then in 2013, the two countries agreed to share military supplies mutually, and in 2017 the cooperation boosted to include the procurement of military ammunition after Japan then relaxed import restrictions related to the transfer of weapons equipment.

http://amscip.org

Essentially, the two countries, Australia and Japan indeed do not explicitly mention China’s presence in the region as a major and real threat in the Defense Pact. However, this defense agreement was carried out to strengthen both countries’ defense cooperation in response to the expansion of China’s military presence in the East China Sea, South China Sea, Hong Kong, and beyond. Obviously, these two countries are targeting China.

In the South China Sea, Beijing has been accused of militarization in disputed territorial waters, while in the East China Sea, Japan and China have disputed over ownership of the island of Senkaku. On the other hand, Canberra is also arguing with Beijing over restrictions on the export of a number of Australian exporting products to China.

As with other defense pacts, this agreement is a right and part of state sovereignty to maintain regional peace and security and the survival of their national interests in the region.

However, if in the end, this defense pact will lead to the deployment of military force, then of course this can create tension in the situation and can trigger an escalation of open conflict in the Asia Pacific region.

Previously, the Japanese government had stepped up defense under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, by purchasing stealth fighters and other modern military weapons, as well as encouraging Japanese military cooperation and adjusting the compatibility of military weapons with America.

In addition to discussing the defense pact between Japan and Australia, they also discussed cooperation in overcoming the coronavirus and hydrogen technology. Japan aims to become the third-largest carbon-free economy by 2050.

During the meeting, Morrison also discussed energy and climate change with Japanese businessmen and indicated that carbon capture and storage and low-emission technologies would be part of the domestic solution. Australia has agreed to achieve zero carbon emissions within the stipulated time.

Morrison has rejected calls for a 2050 target, vowing to do so when it can explain the economic costs to the Australian people. Australia is heavily dependent on coal and gas exports. Korea, the US, and the UK have designated 2050 as zero carbon emissions as the UK has urged Australia to reduce carbon emissions.

During his visit, Morrison also met with the president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who is trying to push Queensland to host the Summer Olympics and Paralympics in 2032.

Japan and Australia are currently having a less than harmonious relationship with China. With Japan relations deteriorated due to Japan’s wartime territory of China and sovereignty dispute in Senkaku, a chain of islands in the East China Sea regions known as Diaoyu in China. The Japanese administered the island; however, Chinese military surveillance ships were frequently near the island. Meanwhile, Australia clashed with China over Prime Minister Morrison’s appeal in April 2020, explicitly asking for a thorough comprehensive transparent investigation into the global outbreak of the coronavirus and upsetting China to continue with restrictions on imported products from Australia.

Japan has embarked on a vision of the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” of economic and security cooperation as opposed to Chinese influence, and recently Japan hosted foreign ministerial discussions among countries known as the “Quad” which consists of from America, Australia, and India.

These four countries are trying to invite countries from Southeast Asia and its surroundings to reduce the expansion of Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

This bamboo curtain country defends its decisions and behavior in regional seas as peaceful actions and denies violating international rules and deliberately ignores the 1982 UNCLOS. China also considers the formation of the Quad as the embryo of NATO birth in the Asia Pacific which aims to fight it frontally.

Warships and aircraft from the four “Quad” countries kick off the annual joint military exercise Malabar in the Bay of Bengal, India on November 3, 2020.

The joint military exercise is being carried out less than a month since mid-October 2020 following a highly symbolic Quad meeting in Tokyo with foreign ministers from the four most powerful democratic countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

Australia is rejoining the exercise for the first time in 13 years, since its participation in 2007.

The Malabar exercises are not officially linked to the Quad forum, but they are clearly a counterweight to Beijing’s expanding military and political influence in the region.

The Quad’s joint military exercises in Malabar have the veiled intention of thwarting Chinese influence.

The military activity is divided into two phases, namely the first phase starting from 3 to 6 November 2020, followed by the second phase at the end of November.

These military exercises also include anti-submarine and anti-aircraft practical exercises designed to improve interoperability between the military forces of the four nations.

This joint Malabar military exercise certainly provides an opportunity for the navies of the four like-minded nations, sharing a common vision of a more stable, open, and prosperous Indo-Pacific, to operate and train together in achieving regional stability.

To conclude, it is still relevant to highlight ASEAN’s role in the meeting involving these countries to keep reminding those intentional ambitions, that, as stated in the ASEAN Chairperson’s Statement at the last Summit 2020, “not to use threats or force” in resolving problems in the region. When talking about ASEAN and optimizing its influence, Indonesia clearly is still recognized as prioritizing a major role among global major powers.

ASEAN+5 RCEP BENEFITS FOR INDONESIA
President Joko Widodo and Minister of Trade Agus Suparmanto at the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement of the ASEAN Summit from the Bogor Palace, SETNEG/Biro Pers Setpres

Writer: Hendra Manurung (Hendra Manurung is currently pursuing a doctoral degree in international relations at Padjadjaran University, Bandung)

On 15 November 2020, the Regional Comprehensive of Economic Cooperation known as RCEP signed by Indonesia President Joko Widodo. It will cover ASEAN member-countries with its five partner countries, such as Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand. But it is rejected by India. It is expected that ASEAN RCEP will benefit Indonesia’s various export products.

In fact, these various benefits ranging from the increased gross domestic product (GDP), boosting exports, and attracting foreign investments coming to Indonesia and more.

The negotiations, which initially started with 16 countries, ended up being signed by 15 countries, involving 10 ASEAN countries and 5 partner countries, namely China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. As is known, India withdrew from negotiations in 2019.

RCEP is still open to India, if India is interested in re-joining, as RCEP will remain open to India when it is ready to rejoin as the original negotiating party.

This also strengthens the declaration put forward by the RCEP trade ministers when holding the RCEP Summit Preparation previously on 11 November 2020.

RCEP is still considered as a mega-regional free trade agreement covering Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania.

All countries of RCEP understand the domestic economic challenges India is facing when it withdraws from the RCEP negotiation process last year.

Further, based on Indonesian Fiscal Policy Agency study in 2019, stated that Indonesia could increase GDP by 0.05% during the 2021-2032 period if it participated in RCEP.

However, if Indonesia does not participate in RCEP, then the national GDP might experience a decline of 0.07% during the same period, from 2021 to 2032.

RCEP will also provide welfare gain for Indonesia around US$ 1.52 billion.

Table 1 Indonesia Balance of Trade, Oct. 2019-Oct 2020 (in millions US$)

Period Result Progress
October 2019 US$ 122,4 surplus
November 2019 US$ – 1.396 deficit
December 2019 US$ -78 deficit
January 2020 US$ -636,7 deficit
February 2020 US$ 2.512,8 surplus
March 2020 US$ 715,7 surplus
April 2020 US$ -372,1 deficit
May 2020 US$ 2.015,7 surplus
June 2020 US$ 1.249 surplus
July 2020 US$ 3.238,4 surplus
August 2020 US$ 2.353,4 surplus
September 2020 US$ 2.390,4 surplus
October 2020 (temporarily) US$ 3.606,8 surplus

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik

Table 2 Indonesia’s export and import of non-oil and gas (in millions US$)

Countries Export Import
China US$ 2.860,3 US$ 2.798,1
The United States US$ 1.638,1 US$ 609
Japan US$ 1.064,3 US$ 731,3
India US$ 874,4 –
EU-27 16 billion Euro 10.2 billion Euro
Singapore – US$ 706,5

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik

When compared to free trade agreements initiated by other countries, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), to the EU-27, the incorporation of 15 countries in RCEP is quite significant.

However, RCEP remains a global dynamic in world trade. RCEP without India represents cumulatively 29% of world GDP, 27.1% of world trade, 29.3% of world FDI and 29.6% of the world’s population.

The existence of RCEP should be able to be the best opportunity and opportunity for Indonesian export products to boost exports, attract investment, and increasing the competitiveness of national economic products in the region.

Suppose, this welfare gain can be defined as the surplus that consumers and producers get from a transaction. If from the consumer perspective, welfare gin is obtained when the price that consumers can pay is greater than the factual price in the market, while from the perspective of producers, welfare is obtained if the price they are able to offer to the market is lower than the factual price in the market.

Indonesia has the potential to avoid the trade balance deficit by US$ 491.46 million. Even so, this potential deficit might be balanced by maximizing the surplus and global supply chain needs through the backward linkage and forward linkage aspects.

Moreover, in order to attract foreign investment to Indonesia, Indonesia needs to do lots of homework regarding to national reforming policies and reforming the domestic bureaucracy.

The business and investment climate in Indonesia has the same attractiveness and can even be higher than in other countries.

Apart from the foreign investment side, to get benefits from the trade gain, Indonesia should be aware and more careful in utilizing RCEP as a benchmark for efforts to develop and to improve the national domestic supply chain and increase national productivity.

It is necessary to explore which potential sectors which still need to be facilitated in terms of increasing productivity and trade competitiveness in penetrating international markets in these areas.

There must be serious efforts by the Indonesian government together with all stakeholders so that the domestic business climate in this sector can be improved more efficient and more attractive so that investment from RCEP can be directed to that sector. In fact, Indonesia must also identify carefully which export products are more competitive for trading in the region.

Indonesia should be able to prepare the advantages of export products with high-quality standards and affordable competitive prices that can compete with other countries mostly in accessing the international market continuously.

Those countries that are most ready to implement RCEP, such as China, for example, are countries that already have and implement more trade agreements previously than Indonesia. This is because these countries may have carried out internal reforms first.

Indonesia should anticipate intense competition between countries over the implementation of a regional partnership agreement so that Indonesia is not merely a potential market for various products export partner countries.

In Southeast Asia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia perhaps are still better prepared than Indonesia. This is because the country has more complex trade agreements and has been implemented effectively to date.

Indonesia is still lagging behind because of the ease of doing business reform. Even though there is now a Job Creation Law, it must be ensured that its implementation is beneficial for all domestic stakeholders before RCEP can be effective after it has been ratified by all countries.

Apart from the need to work hard to realize increased exports, attract investment, and increase economic competitiveness in the region, RCEP is also expected to be able to create higher certainty of business activities in the region to normalize trade and investment flows, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the next 50 years, Indonesia needs to prepare a bumper to protect the sustainability of the domestic industry from the negative impact of free trade which is likely to be unfair.

The translation of the RCEP agreement text is targeted for completion within two months before ratification. Previously, it was necessary to carry out a comprehensive impact analysis by the government and the DPR.

A comprehensive agreement such as the RCEP should have consequences for the content of rules that must be adopted in the regulatory framework of the national economy. Obviously, this will have an impact on the narrowing of the government policy space and state sovereignty to protect the interests of the Indonesian people.

All domestic stakeholders must be involved in the decision-making process for the ratification of the RCEP agreement, including small and medium scale entrepreneurs.

Without any clear preparation and blueprint, the resilience of the domestic industry will in fact be battered, while competing with various cheaper imported products.

The bumper is in the form of a non-tariff policy where this effort is common in other countries in the midst of free competition. However, Indonesia needs to be careful and limited in implementing it so as not to lead to trade disputes with other countries.

Another bumper is related to the precautionary principle and the need for stages in ratifying the RCEP. Not all points of the agreement need to be ratified if they are deemed to be detrimental to the domestic industry. Thus, the ratification process must involve many related parties and be discussed openly.

Trade expansion between countries can only be done if a country has its export products that are ready to be marketed. Currently, around 72% of exports in the global market are manufactured products, while Indonesian exports still rely on commodities such as palm oil and coal.

If Indonesia has not been able to shift to the manufacturing sector, it is certain that Indonesia will only be flooded with imported products or simply become a producer of raw material sources and not shift from traditional markets.

The challenges are even more difficult amid the global pandemic which has hit various domestic industrial sectors, especially manufacturing.

To conclude, the advantage obtained through joining RCEP is how Indonesian export products are able to drive themselves to be more productive and competitive. The government and all business actors need to be more aggressive and quick to make structural adjustments in optimally utilizing RCEP opportunities.