U.S. Wants to Influence ASEAN

The United States’ objections over the appointment of Myanmar as the chair of ASEAN in 2014 looks like a trivial diplomatic maneuver at first glance. The disagreement was only to show that the U.S. is a big country which has always wanted to be taken into account. Thus, the incident was inconsequential. In addition, ASEAN is not a regional organization that was formed by the U.S.: ASEAN was established in 1967 without donations or million dollar grants from Washington.

ASEAN is an independent association of nations in Southeast Asia. Those nations established ASEAN to put Southeast Asian nations in a neutral position in response to the competition between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Therefore, if ASEAN does not follow the U.S.’s wishes, it should not get sanctions from the U.S., Russia or other former Soviet Union nations. ASEAN will also not be put under a kind of broken embargo from international bodies like the United Nations.

The appointment of Myanmar as 2014 ASEAN chair does not violate any international conventions. Making that decision is ASEAN’s prerogative. It is also for the sake of democracy in the world.

With that appointment, Myanmar implicitly accepts and agrees to all ASEAN members’ wishes that Myanmar will gradually implement democratic government in the country. If Myanmar successfully democratizes, the success will be a contribution by ASEAN to the world.

Even without the consent of any non-member countries, including the U.S., the decision made by ASEAN should be executed. All members of ASEAN need to implement the decision so that it has authority and benefits the communities and countries in Southeast Asia.

For example, ASEAN countries should not condemn Myanmar’s regime as a government which does not have democratic leadership. It is Myanmar’s right to implement its own political system. There is no country in the world that can guarantee that its country has the best political system, or a functioning democracy.

There is much evidence to show that the democratic political system in the U.S. is not appropriate when applied to Asia, including Southeast Asia and Indonesia. The U.S. approach is not always constructive. Whatever democratic system Myanmar chooses, it is the choice of Myanmar’s own people. No other party is entitled to decide or dictate the system adopted by Myanmar.

Given the range of the U.S. global agenda in recent years, the U.S. opposition towards Myanmar’s leadership in ASEAN should not be taken lightly. ASEAN must respond with a variety of policies that will encourage the regional organization to become a strong, harmonious association of 11 countries.

Do not let the U.S. enter the lobby of ASEAN because the U.S. is known as a country that has always forced its ideas onto other countries. No matter who rules Washington, whether he is a Democrat like Obama or a Republican like George Bush, the White House has a platform: U.S. policies must be executed. Thus, the U.S. will probably interfere with ASEAN through the recent Myanmar incident.

One of the items on the U.S. agenda is to move thousands of its troops in Afghanistan to Southeast Asia; this should be seen as interference with ASEAN.

The appointment of Myanmar can serve as a starting point for the disruption of ASEAN. The transfer of troops can be part of an effort to undermine ASEAN. The presence of non-ASEAN foreign troops, sooner or later, will affect the cohesiveness of ASEAN.

Experience proves that the U.S. easily creates conditions where there is no reason for Washington not to send troops to a region. The U.S. has done this not only for once or twice, but many times.

For example, in Panama, in Central America, the president did not agree with Washington on the management of the Gulf of Panama, and because of this the U.S. created a situation that allowed its soldiers to enter the country.

Similar events occurred in Iraq and Libya. The fall of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi’s regimes were related to the U.S.’s agenda. Washington easily legitimized its right to establish democracy in those regions.

Indonesia, as one of the experienced founders of ASEAN, should take the initiative. ASEAN is headquartered in Indonesia, so it is very reasonable for Indonesia to take more initiative.

For example, we should anticipate the so-called territorial dispute by six ASEAN member countries in the South China Sea. President Obama called this an area that can cause instability. Obama particularly pointed to China as the country with potential to cause the instability.

This cliché is very dangerous. The country which has the potency to cause instability in the South China Sea is actually the United States because the U.S. does not have any rights in this region. It is only a border crosser.

Even if China does not have the same rights as the U.S., from the name “South China Sea” it is clear that the territory does not belong to the U.S. Thus, it is not appropriate if an outsider like the U.S. considers China as a potential destabilizer of the region.

In conclusion, the U.S. opposition to the decision of ASEAN should be faced with more aggressive diplomatic activities. If the Indonesian president feels uneasy doing that because he once called the United States his second homeland, we should give Indonesia’s foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, the authority to engage in diplomacy.