Reaction Paper to Indonesia

Group 3, who presented the nation of Indonesia, delivered a cohesive introduction to the
country and its role in the ASEAN. Being the largest country in Southeast Asia, there are
certainly various cuisines and landmarks that represent different cultures within the country.
Beginning from the Indonesian flag to the citizens, cuisines, and landmarks, Group 3 was able to
provide an informative presentation, giving its audience a glimpse of Indonesia’s exquisite
historical and natural landmarks, distinguished architecture, and flourishing economy.

Despite being the fourth most populated country in the world, Indonesia is still
continuously growing. With a population of 278 million, the country is wary of threats in
housing, food, and water shortages due to population growth. Not only this, due to population
density, Jakarta was named as the fastest sinking city in the world. Despite these troubles,
Indonesia remains to have one of the largest economies among Southeast Asian nations, and their
economy continues to grow due to effective government management of domestic activities. This
takes us to the country’s association with ASEAN which began on August 8, 1967, that, although
being an important date for the nation and organization, the group did not mention.

Being in the ASEAN organization, the member countries must adhere to the ASEAN
community pillars. The first pillar is the Political-Security Community Pillar. Although the
ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) was discussed within the
political-security community pillar, our group deemed that this must also be discussed in the
ASEAN way, as this connects with the ASEAN way. Indonesia has been polluting its own and
surrounding nations with its forest fires for a long time. Compared to other ASEAN countries,
Indonesia’s forest fires occur in larger areas which greatly and negatively affects the
environment. Because of the seasonal haze and the disadvantages that come along with it, the
ASEAN signed the AATHP. Accordingly, a question was raised within our group. “Why did the
ASEAN create this act despite its non-interference principle?” The group failed to elucidate on
the matter which deprived us from further understanding Indonesia’s point of view and the
ASEAN way. However, our group reached a conclusion that this is due to the fact that the
seasonal haze and haze pollution affect the ASEAN countries. In publishing the AATHP, the
ASEAN has responded to the issue of the countries and benefited them.

Next, regarding the economic community pillar, group 3 mentioned that ASEAN had
published ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) in 1997 for trade protocol calibration through
ASEAN Customs Policy Implementation and Work Programme. Furthermore, due to ASEAN’s
implementation of ASEAN Single Window, Indonesia followed and administered its own
Indonesia National Single Window (INSW), a system which allows the country to quicken
processes of documents needed for trading. Ports which are connected to this system comprise
98% of Indonesia’s international trade, ascertaining that INSW definitely benefited the countries
conducting foreign trade with Indonesia. Undoubtedly, group 3 was able to provide
comprehensive information about how Indonesia supports and follows the ASEAN economic
community pillar.

On the contrary, group 3 discussed Indonesia’s stand in the Rohingya Crisis which
exhibited Indonesia’s stand regarding such matters. Despite the non-interference principle,
Indonesia took it upon itself to support the Myanmar refugees and voiced out its concern
regarding the brutality by persuading Myanmar to cease. Group 3 thoroughly provided us with
knowledge regarding this topic which made us ponder on “what is Indonesia’s benchmark on
when to interfere?” Lastly, Group 3 discussed the South China Sea dispute which, again,
displayed the ASEAN way of responding to the needs of the ASEAN member countries.
Indonesia exhibited its ability to act promptly and accordingly, proving its adherence to the
ASEAN way of managing the needs of ASEAN countries.

In relation to this, group 3 also discussed the ASEAN pillar of the Socio-Cultural
Community, which implicates a committed, participative, and responsible community. The group
included that Indonesia plays a role in advocating for a sustainable community that fortifies the
environment and encourages social development. It was notably mentioned that the ASEAN
Coordinating Center of Humanitarian Assistance in Disaster Management or AHA Center hub is
stationed in Jakarta. Group 3 briefly mentioned Indonesia’s humanitarian position on the
situation of Ukraine but did not expound too much on the matter. On the other hand, in
promoting culture and traditions, group 3 also reported about the ASEAN Committee on Culture
and Information (ASEAN-COCI), which encourages activities for the celebration of the diverse
cultures of ASEAN nations to foster collaboration and the unity of the ASEAN community. They
were able to convey how Indonesia gives significance to this through their information sector,
where there are news reports and a specific channel that presents ASEAN-related news and
current events.

To conclude, group 3’s report was certainly informative. In spite of our few
aforementioned concerns, our group agrees that Group 3 has discussed how Indonesia adheres to
the ASEAN community pillars and the ASEAN way. However, we do suggest that the group
shall research and analyze the topic more meticulously to provide a better presentation and
understanding for the audience.