Power Politics
I am born 10 years before Singapore Independent. Singapore joint Malaysia in 1963 Aug 31st.
Then later in 1965 Aug 9th, Singapore become independent. Anyway, I will share my observations & Memory on these later.
I can recalled those day Lee used to come to my Dad shop for meeting almost on a weekly bases. I have been in born a political observer since I was 6th years old. I have witness the
Riots
Confrontations & Insurgencies
Political Struggle between Parties & Countries in the Regions
The Isreal assitance in setting up the Army is a known facts for those days in Singapore. But the Air Force & Marine were trained by the British. I can recalled that the British have withdrew the Airforce totally in 1979.
The things that happen then & now be it in South East Asia, Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America...etc. There are no difference on the basic Conflicts issues:-
Interests
Idealogises
Religion
Challenge of Power
Be it Chinese, Malay or Indonesian even Thais; Burmese; Philippinothey have in common is that all these race are through many thousand years of ehnic groups integrations. But due to the history have not been properly recorded. Therefore it create an opportunity for those intend to be Rule's or Political leader's to capitalized it as an issue. So that they can rally the support of their respective people in their country. That create the opportunity for their ex-Soverign Government Nation's & other Military Gears manufacturing nation's a multi-billions dollars business opportunity.
I have lives in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia... I have friends relatives in all these countries... It is not my interest to see that these countries due to the certain Politicians ulterior motives & pushing our friends & relatives to war. Be it the war in the Region or even in the case of What Winston have said, the super power in the making of China & India.
Looking at the blood relations from the people in South East Asia.. be it Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Vietnam ...Singapore... you see that their people have blood relations from both India & China. Now looking at the China & Indian Culture.. there is no history inscripted that the Chinese & Indian Race with such a strong civilization & cultural back ground; have proven that the Parents & Heirs are killing each other!!
Yes, you may see that the news paper reporting that the people .. parents & children are fighting in court over Money!!!!! Never, in the history hard written that these 2 great race with more than 6,000 of civilization have been killing their own bloods. After all be it Chinese or Indian, their "God" is their Ancestors. It have been past on generations after generations that their respective Ancestor's are their Living "God" who give them the Power of this Live!!
Therefore.. the Best Balance of Power in South East Asia is their own people.. the whole Asia is a big family by itself. Leave the family alone!!
Indonesia
I have previously touched on the paradigm of an arms race in Southeast Asia, particularly between Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Since the demise of the Soviet Union and the breakdown of bipolar stability, the region been suffering from a power vacuum. China and India are becoming increasingly assertive over the area, but as of yet lack the credible ability to apply force. Partially in response to the explosive growth of these two Asian giants, the three aforementioned countries place military defense as a top priority. Singapore has, with Israeli help, built up a technologically advanced, very efficient, and very powerful defense force. As it stands, the island is effectively invulnerable from amphibious assault. It also possesses enough naval power to enforce its interests throughout the area; natural resource concessions, piracy, and orderly commerce are all key issues. As such factors apply equally to Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur has spent a great sum of capital improving its stock of weaponry as well. Indonesia has also sought to do so, but over the past decade has been stymied by a variety of factors.
Perhaps most importantly, the country became an international pariah for its humanitarian abuses and tyrannical rule. Ever since Washington, Jakarta's main backer for many years, imposed an arms embargo 13 years ago, the country's forces have been in decay. Improvements have come at a far slower pace than those in neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Furthermore, severe corruption among government officials and the military-industrial complex has crushed efficiency, and the government has been poorly managed. Indonesia's military forces remain fairly capable, but are rapidly aging and insufficient for the nation's demands. The type of gunboat diplomacy it's been using with Malaysia, for example, can only go so far unless its backed up with credible hard power. Unless it reforms, Jakarta in the future will be evicerated by rival powers.
So it's within that political context that recently elected Indonesian President Susilo Yudhoyono has set out to reestablish strong ties with the United States and greatly strengthen his decaying country. I have written very positively of Mr. Yudhoyono in the past, and I firmly stand by that assessment today. The President has taken real steps to accomplish his bold agenda, and has shown a determination to reform. Irrespective of whether he's able to effectively root out corruption (or if he merely suppresses it), I foree strong economic growth and vibrant foreign investment in Jakarta's future. Following from this, and the warming of ties between Indonesia and America, it appears that Mr. Yudhoyono will almost certainly succeed in modernizing the military and building up hard power. A very assertive foreign policy is sure to accompany this change.
One question to be asked is whether strengthening military and diplomatic ties is in Washington's best interest. After all, helping Indonesia to improve militarily would mean reducing the relative power of an important American ally, Singapore. Yet this concern is relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. US power would always be greater than either Indonesia or Singapore. So Washington could continue to maintain leverage over the balance of power. Furthermore, allowing Indonesia to strengthen itself militarily may actual result in greater regional stability. Granted, a powerful Indonesia may bully its neighbors. However, it would be resistant to Chinese pressure and, with increasing economic integration, could play a positive role in securing commerce and cracking down on piracy.
The other risk in warming relations is somewhat more real. In doing so, some argue, the United States will release the pressure currently on Jakarta in response to its human rights abuses. Senior military officers indicted by UN prosecutors in relation to alledged war crimes in East Timor have yet to be handed over by the Indonesian government. Continuing abuses in the fight between the central government and separatist insurgents have also provoked international outrage. Many believe that maintaining the current system, whereby the military exercises significant influence over government policy, will necessarily lead to more abuses.
That's a valid point. By lending military and diplomatic support to the regime in Jakarta, the United States may very well allow the regime to carry on unsavory practices. However, engagement with the government would foster greater liberalism and accountability in the country. After all, to accomplish the goal of modernizing Indonesia under the framework of liberalism would require reform in governance. The eventual transfer of military control to civilian authorities, the more expansive rulesets Indonesia would have to abide by, and the influence of a Western presence would all advance the cause of good governance and accountability. The very positive effect of American intervention in Aceh province following the recent tsunami disaster is proof enough of that.
While the costs to the US of support for Indonesia are marginal, the benefits are far larger in magnitude. The most obvious benefit is the revenue that would accrue to US companies for arms sales and defense integration contracts. This may turn out to be quite substantial. The most important benefit, however, would be in the form of Indonesian stability and prosperity.
As is, the Indonesian state is economically and politically unstable. It's fractured, and the civilian central government lacks the authority it should have for proper administration. Corruption is rife, and the country is a hotbed for piracy; both the traditional kind and that of intellectual property. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim state, and a central base for many radical strands of Islam. It's a destabilizing factor in an already tense region.
Restoring strong ties between Washington and Jakarta would help the government to stabilize the country and promote economic prosperity. Diplomatic support would lend credibility to the central government in its mission to centralize power. Military cooperation would lead to a more powerful central government in the hands of more responsibile civilian leadership. Coordination between international groups and the Indonesian police would help in the effort against piracy. Furthering economic ties, such as with a trade agreement, would help the country to expand economically. US influence could be useful in bolstering the authority and legitimacy of the legal system. Positive American action, like that in Aceh, would vastly improve Washington's image in the eyes of those 200+ million Muslims. Not to mention that the US could eventually gain another ally for the day when it must compete with India and China as equals in the Asian theater.
Thus it becomes clear in the final calculus that the benefits of a good Indonesian-American relationship far outweigh the costs.
Power Politics: Asia Pacific Archives
No comments:
Post a Comment