Going Global - Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Korea and South Africa in International Affairs

208 Pages·2011·2.8 MB·English

Going Global

Going Global
Australia, Brazil, Indonesia,
Korea and South Africa
in International Affairs
edited by
Melissa Conley Tyler
Wilhelm Hofmeister
Australian
Institute of
International
Affairs
© 2011 Editorial matter, Melissa H. Conley Tyler and Wilhelm Hofmeister;
individual works, the authors
Publishers
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
34 Bukit Pasoh Road
Singapore 089848
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.kas.de/singapore
Australian Institute of International Affairs
Stephen House
32 Thesiger Court
Deakin ACT 2600, Australia
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.aiia.asn.au
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior consent of the copyright holders.

The responsibility for facts and opinions expressed in this publication rests exclusively with the
contributors and their interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of the
publishers.
National Library Board Singapore Cataloguing in Publication Data

BL85
201.5 -- dc22 OCN642645383
Printed in Singapore
Contents
EDITORIAL vii
PART 1:
REGIONAL POWERS, REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
3
Nomfundo Ngwenya
1. South Africa in Africa
17
Graeme Dobell
2. Many Codes: Australia’s Myriad Regional Homes
33
Raymond Atje
3. The Rise of East Asia: Managing the Change
PART 2:
GLOBAL POWERS
43
4N.i cRke gBiiosnleayl and Global Powers in a Changing International Order:
Australia’s Dealings with the Powerful
57
Heungkyu Kim
5: Rising China and its Implications for South Korea’s Foreign Policy
67
Hyun-Wook Kim
6. Obama’s East Asia Policy and US–South Korea Relations
75
Mzukisi Qobo
7. The New Century of Emerging Powers and South Africa’s Response
85
Renato G. Flôres Jr and Denise Gregory
8. Brazil’s New Role in International Politics
PART 3:
GLOBAL CHALLENGES
93
Wiryono Sastrohandoyo
9. On Global Challenges
105
Soon-chun Lee
10. Towards Strengthening the NPT Regime
111
Xu Yi-chong
11. Challenges and Opportunities: Energy Security
121
Mariana Luz
12. A Brazilian Perspective on Climate Change
129
13. Facing the Challenges of Climate Change:
TRhoem Cya Cshe eovfa Sloliuetrh Africa and its Potential Collaboration with Other
Southern Economies
PART 4:
GLOBAL SYSTEM
155
1M4a. rFkr oBmee tshoen G20 to the G2?:
The Evolving International Order and its Implications for Australia
165
Jusuf Wanandi and Maria Monica Wihardja
15. G20: Perspectives from the Asia-Pacific
175
1D6a.n Rieeflo Dr.m Birnagd Glolowbal Economic Governance:
A Strategy for Middle Powers in the G20
185
Seonjou Kang
17: Middle Powers in Global Governance: A Korean Perspective
EVENT PROGRAM 193
Editorial
Melissa H. Conley Tyler* and Wilhelm Hofmeister**
This volume is the product of a joint Australian Institute of International
Affairs and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung event ‘Going Global: Australia, Brazil,
Indonesia, Korea and South Africa in International Affairs’ held in Jakarta
on 25-26 May 2010. This event broke new ground by bringing together five
institutes of international affairs to discuss the ways in which their countries
might be seen as ‘Going Global’ in a changing international system.
Impressive delegations attended from five institutes active in interna-
tional issues: the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA), Centro
Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (CEBRI), Indonesia’s Centre for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS), South Korea’s Institute of Foreign Affairs
and National Security (IFANS) the South African Institute of International
Affairs (SAIIA). The event was funded by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung
with support for the Australia delegation from the Australian Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The event provided a forum to discuss and review how Australia, Brazil,
Indonesia, South Korea and South Africa deal with their respective places
in the world and in their regions. It was thought that this grouping, although
unusual, met the requirements for fruitful comparative discussion. There are a
number of similarities between the countries: all five countries are important
cornerstones of their regions and yield influence through their foreign policies
and membership of multilateral institutions. However at the same time there
are a number of salient differences between these countries, including in the
way that they conceptualise and implement their foreign policy. Discussions
lived up to expectations by exploring both similarities and differences to il-
luminate common problems.
Following opening remarks, discussion was divided into four topics:
• Regional Powers, Regional Responsibilities
• Dealing with Global Powers
• Global Challenges
• Global System
* National Executive Director, Australian Institute of International Affairs.
** Director, Regional Programme, Political Dialogue Asia, Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
viii Going Global
This structure has been preserved in this publication. Section one looks at how
the five countries manage issues in their regions. Section two looks at these
countries’ relations with great powers – and, in some cases, their desire to be
global powers. Section three looks at global challenges that are shared by all
five countries – such as nuclear non-proliferation, energy security and climate
change. Finally, the last section focuses on recent changes in global gover-
nance, particularly the G20, and ways that the five countries could collaborate
to contribute to the development of a global system more accommodating of
their needs.
So-Called Middle Powers
One of the surprises for organisers of this event was the strong interest each
had in dialogue among this unusual grouping. Participants shared the view that
discussing commonalities and differences among Australia, Brazil, Indonesia,
South Korea and South Africa would be useful – even if it wasn’t clear what
this group of countries should be called.
Participating countries were variously defined as:
• “countries with regional influence and growing global importance”
• “countries with some influence on our respective regions”
• “like minded countries with significant standing in their respective
regions”
• “countries with expectations that they will play a greater role”
• “so called middle powers with aspirations for international status”
• “like-minded five”
• “countries whose voices have to be heard.”
Each of the countries could be seen as on a journey moving from a regional
perspective to a more global one. This is part of a more interesting variable
new geometry than the old dichotomies of East-West or North-South.
Many things are shared between these countries such as global challenges,
which each country faces equally, and the emerging global system which all
have a stake in and a place in. All are faced by the issue of how to relate to
global power shifts. They also have some ability to help solve global problems.
However the many real differences between the five countries remain
evident. A range of relevant differences determined how each country was
impacted by global challenges – for example, as developed or developing
countries, with large or small population, that are reliant on coal or include
renewables in their energy matrix, subject to Kyoto Protocol ‘Annex 1’ or
not, under or not under the US nuclear umbrella, and with an industrial or a
resources-dependent economy.
Editorial ix
Regional Powers, Regional Responsibilities
Looking at the role of each country in its immediate region, all except South
Korea have a specific – if not unchallenged – role as a regional power. For
South Korea, the nature of its neighbourhood – surrounded by China and
Japan – means that being a regional power is not a realistic goal.
Each of the participating countries has a stake in its region due to a mix of
factors including humanitarian impulses, national self-interest and reciprocity
for past support from neighbours. At the same time, each country has some
ambivalence about leadership. Many of these countries are uncomfortable with
the disparities between themselves and others in the region. They are uncom-
fortable with power and feel the pull of solidarity. It was noted in discussions
that “the problem is not being devoid of power, but having too much power.”
The concepts of “accidental hegemons” and “reluctant leaders” were raised.
For Brazil, one answer is “to act in non-hegemonic, non-leadership role.”
For South Africa, the answer is “continental co-operation.” For Indonesia,
there is ambivalence about exercising power given its membership in ASEAN.
While Australia does at times attempt to act as the “regional superpower” in
the Pacific, it doesn’t get much thanks for doing so.
Common issues discussed were questions on what is meant by power, the
legitimacy of power, the need for solidarity with other countries and the issue
of one country representing – or being perceived to represent – a whole region.
Discussion also focused on the concept of region for each country. It was
noted that Australia has a range of potential “homes” in the world: for example,
the Pacific, the Indian Ocean or the Asia Pacific more broadly. For Indonesia,
the idea of its “region” is moving from ASEAN to a wider idea of the region.
Korea’s region has historically been a battleground of great powers and
can’t be understood without reference to the great powers. This contrasted
strongly with the view on South America which is generally perceived a less
important region strategically. It was noted that this may be bad for the region’s
pride, but good for its freedom of action.
Global Powers
Each of the five countries had a slightly different perspective on the issue of
dealing with global powers.
For some countries, the focus was on particular great powers and relation-
ships with them and between them. Australia and South Korea focus strongly
on the perceived “G2” of the US and China, as can be seen by the chapters in
this volume.
For other countries, the focus is on the quest for “global significance” at
a time when new actors are rising in the global system. From Brazil, there is
the vision of Brazil as a country that can contribute to global solutions, espe-
cially as a mediator between the strong and the weak. Indonesia, too, aspires
x Going Global
to a “more active role in international affairs” which, in one sense, has already
occurred since Indonesia is now present in global forums. The question for
Indonesia now is how to deal with this position.
One issue discussed was the difficulty of developing the capacity to meet
these ambitions. There may be a significant gap between emerging powers’
perceived global responsibilities and the internal social issues and problems
that they face. Some participants felt that participating countries’ ability to
contribute to global public goods is badly overstated.
Global Challenges
Global challenges discussed included economic development, food security,
the global financial system, nuclear proliferation, deforestation, climate change
and energy security.
Indonesia’s situation was noted as having both international and external
dimensions left from a challenging history: “Indonesia’s march in history has
been most difficult.” Key challenges for Indonesia include economic develop-
ment, agriculture, food security, the need to make the global financial system
sustainable, energy and climate change and nuclear proliferation. Proliferation
was noted to be “a threat today no less than during the height of the Cold War”.
For Korea, proliferation was noted as an ongoing and very serious concern. It
was noted as a positive development that countries are now approaching non-
proliferation with a “newly formed sense of urgency in this area.” Like-minded
states were called upon to play a more instrumental role in non-proliferation
efforts.
Energy issues were identified along with climate change as one of the
twin challenges for emerging countries. A welcome sense of the innovation
occurring in energy issues was given – “seeing the opportunity in every dif-
ficulty” – and the gap was noted between countries’ negotiating positions and
what is actually happening on the ground in energy issues.
South Africa and Brazil focused on climate change from very different
perspectives: Brazil with its clean energy matrix of 50% renewable sources
and South Africa with its 90% dependence on coal. However both are attempt-
ing to act as advocates for the developing world in climate change discussions.
It was noted that dealing with each of the challenges identified by par-
ticipants is beyond the ability of any one country. They may even be beyond
the ability of the system of sovereign states. This suggests them as areas for
potential co-operation among like-minded powers.
It was noted that this gives impetus for a call to see if countries can work
together on common challenges by “promoting a sense of common destiny and
mutual trust”. Even if full global agreement on issues is not currently possible,
there are still things that smaller groups of countries can do together, many of
which are non-politicised. For example, in the absence of universal agreement