Author: Sarah Teo
Affiliation: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (Singapore)
Organization/Publisher: The Pacific Review/ Taylor & Francis
Date/Place: May 16, 2022 / University of Warwick, UK
Type of Literature: Journal Article
Number of Pages: 28
Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09512748.2022.2075444?journalCode=rpre20
Keywords: ASEAN, Australia, Indonesia, Good Regional Citizenship, Middle Powers, Multilateralism
Brief:
The author examines the capabilities of middle powers and their strategies in sustaining peaceful change in the middle of changing regional order and great power competition. In doing so, the author uses the concept of ‘good regional citizenship’, an alteration from the concept of ‘good international citizenship’. In particular, the author uses Australia and Indonesia as a case study in assessing their foreign policy toward sustaining peace and order amidst the Sino-U.S. rivalry in the region. The author chooses Australia and Indonesia as case studies because, first, both countries are qualified as middle powers in their economic achievements and political contributions in international relations. Second, although Australia and Indonesia are not the only middle powers in the region, the author argues that both countries have been the most proactive actors among other middle powers in the region.
The main question that the author addresses in this paper is how Australia and Indonesia construct their foreign policy to maintain peace during the change that has come with the competition between Beijing and Washington, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The paper firstly defines why the alteration of ‘good international citizenship’ to ‘good regional citizenship’ is important in assessing these two middle powers’ contributions in the region. The concept as a framework and its assumptions are then applied in assessing the foreign policy of Australia and Indonesia in the context of Sino-U.S. competition.
Defining the ‘good regional citizenship’
The concept of good international citizenship describes the foreign policy behavioural dimensions of middle powers that are proactive in international cooperation to promote global public goods. Additionally, it often is related to the concept of morality and responsibility in international order and the promotion of human rights. However, the author urges the need to modify this concept because such idea is often associated with the behaviour of Western-oriented middle power. Therefore, in assessing the contribution of middle powers toward peaceful transition in the context of Sino-U.S. rivalry in the Asia-Pacific, an alternative concept of ‘good regional citizenship’ will be better suited. Two modifications need to be applied in this concept. First, is to reemphasize the link between national interest and the pursuit of good regional citizenship. As mentioned before, good international citizenship is linked to the selective promotion of human rights and the racist morality of Western liberal internationalism. However, this is not the case for good regional citizenship, as the author argues that good regional citizenship should be treated as the implementation of enlightened self-interest that is based on international interdependence. Withdrawing the concept of good regional citizenship from the assumptions on morality and humanitarian issues will shift the debates about whether middle powers are more virtuous than great powers.
The second modification involves the level of analytical focus. As the name suggests, good regional citizenship focuses on the dynamics within a specific region. However, its analysis will not isolate from a global-level development; in fact, regional and international developments are often interlinked. However, a distinct level of analysis allows focusing on the specific elements that contribute toward peaceful change in the region in light of major power competition.
Additionally, there are three assumptions for good regional citizenship within the context of Sino-U.S. rivalry. First, strengthening inclusive multilateralism in the region. Second, reinforcing rules-based order. And third, bridging efforts or being a mediator to offer acceptable solutions to both rivals. These assumptions are the framework in assessing Australian and Indonesian efforts towards good regional citizenship in maintaining a peaceful transition in the region. These assumptions are not mutually exclusive, and overlap with each other in various ways.
Australia
Since the end of the Cold War, Australia has been a proactive actor in the region in building regional multilateralism and institutions. This effort is well-documented in Australia’s leadership role in formulating the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 1989, and also its proactive role in many regional security dialogues with ASEAN. However, its focus mainly lies on the containment of Beijing’s influence in the region since Australia is an ally and partner of the U.S. in the region. From the Australian government’s perspective, strong U.S. engagement in the region will create a better regional climate to serve its interests. In reinforcing a rules-based order, Australia also has been proactive. For instance, Canberra submitted a Note Verbale to the United Nations in July 2020 in which it rejected China’s claim of South China Sea territory that is inconsistent with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, clarifying a stronger stance of Australia against China in this dispute. Moreover, Australia has built partnerships with smaller groupings of like-minded partners, which it claims is to bolster a rules-based order in the region, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the QUAD) involving Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S. as well as the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) security arrangement. To some extent, these minilateral cooperations have undermined the efforts of building an inclusive multilateralism in the region. At the end of the day, Australia is still an ally and partner of the U.S. in the region, which has consequently affected Australia’s bridging efforts to mediate between both rivals. Australia’s relations with China have worsened in the last couple of years—from the South China Sea dispute mentioned earlier, then its call for a focus-on-China investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by Beijing’s trade sanctions. Furthermore, relations worsened with Australia’s participation in U.S.-backed security dialogues like the QUAD and AUKUS.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s contribution towards regional institution building has mainly been exercised through its leadership and influence within ASEAN. It has aimed to build a neutral and non-alignment regional institution to maintain peace and order, particularly in Southeast Asia but also in the broader region. The country’s principle on foreign policy, which is ‘free and active’, to some extent has supported Jakarta’s role in building an inclusive multilateralism in the region. For example, Jakarta has been advocating for a regional architecture in the Indo-Pacific that is open, transparent, and inclusive. Moreover, Indonesia, which has never taken a side since the Cold War, has attempted to engage with various regional powers in Southeast Asia and East Asia. However, Indonesia’s efforts in reinforcing a rules-based order in the region have met some shortcomings. Jakarta’s advocacy for the ASEAN Charter in the 2000s was resisted by some of the ASEAN member states, especially in its attempt to integrate democratic principles and humanitarian issues, including the establishment of a human rights commission. Moreover, under the presidency of Joko Widodo, Indonesia has been less active in rules-promotion efforts, due to the president’s principle of focusing on domestic development and leaving foreign affairs to its minister and bureaucracy. This has led critics towards Jakarta to claim its lack of interest in enforcing a rules-based order in the region. On the bright side, Indonesia has been active in its role as bridging mediator over conflicting parties in the region. This role has been supported by Jakarta’s efforts on inclusive multilateralism that encourages a multilateral dialogue in developing technical cooperation and promoting peaceful management of the disputes. Especially with its chairing the presidency of the G20 this year, Indonesia has the opportunity to exercise its role as a bridge in the Asia-Pacific in a broader context.
Overall, despite some shortcomings in Australia and Indonesia in exercising roles in good regional citizenship, both countries have been making progress towards peaceful transition in the region amid the major power rivalry. All such efforts are still open to a variety of interpretation through many perspectives. T he US may cherish Australia’s efforts in the region because Australia acts as a main ally of the US, and Jakarta’s efforts may be underestimated by both rivals due to its reluctance of being the main partner in the region.
By: Salman Nugraha, CIGA Research Intern
