Darwin and TPP continue to make waves

It was saddening to read of a rumoured rift between the Indonesian president and his foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa. While some have rejected this speculation, others have wondered whether SBY might be looking to replace Marty. Political observer Ikrar Nusa Bhakti points out that it would not be a good time for such a move: “If he insists on [the replacement] now, it would trigger a big question for the public, especially after Obama’s reported statement of dislike … It would make it sound as if [Yudhoyono] is a US crony; as if he receives political orders from the US.” (The “reported statement” is mentioned here.)

Given that 2011 has already turned out to be something of an “annus horribilis” for Yudhoyono, getting rid of the highly articulate and intelligent Marty, in circumstances that might suggest “leaning toward the US”, would hardly seem advisable.

Bantarto Bandoro of the Indonesia Defense University (link above) argues that, “given recent events, Indonesia needed to reaffirm its free and active foreign policy”. SBY’s “gestures” regarding the Darwin plan, however, no longer reflected this stance: “It is in fact a pretty significant deviation.” University of Indonesia international law expert Hikmahanto Juwana “also reiterated Indonesia’s need to stay true to its free and active stance, given that most of the public still rejected the idea of a pro-US foreign policy”.

An “official close to the issue” has suggested that this is a “good cop bad cop” game,  aimed at both the US and China, “with Marty expressing a tough stance on the US while Yudhoyono presented a calming influence”. Maybe…

Meanwhile, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), another US-endorsed bone of contention, continues to generate reaction.

Philippine trade official Ramon T. Kabigting is quoted by BusinessWorld as saying that ASEAN “will begin discussions next year on harmonizing existing free trade agreements in a bid to open an alternative” to the TPP. The move reflects “concern over the complexities of implementing separate free tree agreements” and “worry given strict standards in terms of intellectual property rights, labor, and the environment”.

Kabigting explains: “How do we consolidate those ASEAN plus one FTAs for simplification and consistency? … To some degree, it will be like the TPP, but it is not meant to outdo the other trading bloc. It’s just that members of the two groups (ASEAN with its partners and the TPP group) are asking themselves what measures do they deem appropriate to become part of such a deal … Maybe for the TPP, the attraction will be that the [United States] is part of it, but we are formulating our own offerings which are sets of trade facilitation and liberalization measures with anybody who wants to trade with the ASEAN.”

On the TPP in Indonesia generally, “one thing is becoming apparent: the absence of the two major emerging economies in Asia — China and Indonesia”. On the details, though, opinion is mixed. Some see promising opportunities for textiles and electronics. Others question Indonesia’s preparedness for such an arrangement, expressing doubts about infrastructure, logistics, legal frameworks, and service sector capacity.

These are stories that will no doubt continue to run in 2012. Let's hope the denouements reflect the inclusivity and balance that have always stood SEA in good stead in the past.