BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:MP-IDSA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20230101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20240115T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20240115T053000
DTSTAMP:20261028T215440
CREATED:20240514T225811Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240514T225811Z
UID:81238-1705296600-1705296600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Report on Roundtable Discussion with Dr Satish Chandra Mishra\, Senior Fellow\, Habibe Centre\, Jakarta
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Satish Chandra Mishra\, Senior Fellow\, at The Habibie Centre (Jakarta)\, visited the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) on 15 January 2024 for a Roundtable Discussion on “Indonesia’s Systemic Transformation and its Implications for its Policy-Making”. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy\, Director General\, MP-IDSA\, chaired the discussion. The scholars of MP-IDSA were in attendance. \nExecutive Summary\nThe session explored Indonesia’s domestic priorities since the end of the authoritarian Suharto regime. The hits and misses of the subsequent Era Reformasi (Reform Era) were identified. This was followed by a discussion on the current political climate and bilateral relation. The upcoming elections were discussed at length. \nDetailed Report\nThe session began with Director General\, MP-IDSA\, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy extending a warm welcome to Dr. Mishra. Amb. Chinoy commenced the session with some of his own observations and a few follow-up questions for Dr. Mishra\, to render his assessment during the course of the Roundtable Discussion. The Director General asked the Speaker to provide insight into Indonesia’s relations with China. The latter was asked to speak about Indonesia’s relations with other major powers such as India\, the United States\, and Australia. Amb. Chinoy also touched on the themes of radicalism and Indonesia’s role in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation vis-à-vis that of its neighbour Malaysia. \nDr. Mishra lamented the dearth of informed knowledge regarding India in Indonesia despite the love for Bollywood\, and vice-versa. He began his discussion with a brief overview of the Suharto-era centralization of power. He noted the existence of a parallel military and civil administration akin to the political commissars of the Soviet Union. Despite the lack of organized opposition to Suharto\, the Asian financial crisis of 1997 led to unprecedented violence and political unrest. The subsequent fall of the authoritarian New Order paved the way for a complete overhaul of the social\, economic\, judicial and political systems of Indonesia. Every aspect of Indonesian life was subjected to these systemic reforms. The hitherto highly centralized government was made more democratic by two laws on decentralization\, passed in the year 1999. Dr. Mishra cited the Constitutional amendments and judiciary reforms as two major examples of the systemic transformation of Indonesia. \nDr. Mishra noted that these reforms were homegrown and required no foreign assistance. However\, some gaps remain. He cited the political system of Indonesia as a case in point. The political system of Indonesia\, he argued\, is partly French and partly American in its composition. Although the transformation is still an ongoing process\, significant progress has been made in a short period of time. According to Dr. Mishra\, Indonesia saw economic recovery within five years of the onset of Era Reformasi. Economic growth has been balanced by a social system that is cohesive. Additionally\, the systemic transformation efforts have not been impeded by any fears of instability. Dr. Mishra ruled out any possibility of a Suharto-like military coup. Nation building was always a top priority for Indonesia. Outlining Indonesia’s security and domestic priorities\, Dr. Mishra identified nation-building as being the paramount concern. Around 20-30 million new entrants are expected to join the Indonesian workforce this year and thus job creation is an area of concern. He opined that there is a need for generating employment to help absorb the large working-class population. \nEstablishing an integrated domestic market finds itself among the other domestic priorities of Indonesia. Such a project requires massive infrastructure investment and much of the foreign investment comes from countries such as China and India. Addressing external concerns regarding the “capture” by China\, Dr. Mishra argued that foreign investments in Indonesia are not restricted to the Chinese. He also added that the investor always has the upper hand at the initial stages of implementing a large infrastructure project. \nDr. Mishra presented an opinion that despite the impression of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Indonesia\, with observable characteristics such as more women donning the hijab\, there is a need to observe the phenomenon more closely. He argued that although the sharia is increasingly being adopted at the level of local governments\, family law has largely been the focus. Additionally\, Islamic fundamentalism has not come up in a big way in the national politics despite Indonesia being a Muslim majority country. The total share of Islamic parties does not exceed 20 percent. \nOn the theme of electoral politics\, Dr. Mishra sought to distinguish Malay politics from Indonesian politics. Malaysian politics resembles the British style of politics. Indonesian political structure\, on the other hand\, draws influence from the United States and France. All elections in Indonesia\, across various levels of government\, are held on the same day. Dr. Mishra noted a sharp decline in political violence since 2000\, thus pointing to Indonesian democracy being quite deeply rooted. Dr. Mishra made a brief mention of US-Indonesia relations since the Suharto days. Pointing to USA’s softpower in the country. \nDr. Mishra concluded his discussion with an optimistic economic forecast for both India and Indonesia. He hailed the advent of an “Asian Century”\, endorsing the projection of India and Indonesia as the likely candidates among the Top 4 economies in the near future. \nQuestions and Comments\nAmbassador Chinoy made reference to the release of Abu Bakar Bashir of the Jemaah Islamiya\, an influential hardliner who had been incarcerated on account of providing training camps for militants in Aceh and has also been linked to the 2002 Bali bombings. \nMr. Arvind Khare asked for a clearer picture on the decentralized structure of governance in Indonesia. In the light of the political ascension of Jokowi’s two sons\, Gibran Rakabuming Raka and Kaesang Pangarep\, Mrs. Shruti Pandalai made note of the emerging trend of dynastic politics in Indonesia. Gp Capt. Narang asked for the Speaker’s opinion on whether Indonesia views India as a partner in its industrial growth and military modernization. Cmde. Abhay Singh brought up the issue of corruption as an impediment for economic growth in Indonesia. Mr. Om Prakash’s question revolved around the expected electoral outcome. Mr. Niranjan Oak enquired about the role of Muhammadiya Islamic schools in influencing elections. Dr. Temjenmeren Ao brought up the issue of Indonesia’s fiscal control on its public debt. \nDr. Mishra responded to all comments and questions from the Director General and MP-IDSA scholars. \nReport prepared by Ms. Aditi Dhaundiyal\, Intern\, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/report-on-roundtable-discussion-with-dr-satish-chandra-mishra-senior-fellow-habibe-centre-jakarta-2
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20240118T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20240118T053000
DTSTAMP:20261028T215440
CREATED:20240514T230056Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240514T230137Z
UID:81240-1705555800-1705555800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Event Report on The Prospect Foundation Delegation Visit to MP-IDSA
DESCRIPTION:On 18 January 2024\, the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interactive session with The Prospect Foundation\, Taiwan. The delegation from The Prospect Foundation was led by Dr. I-Chung Lai\, President\, The Prospect Foundation and the session was chaired by DG\, MP-IDSA\, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy. The discussion was followed by Q&A. \nDetailed Report\nThe session began with opening remarks from DG\, MP-IDSA\, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy. He observed that it is striking that Taiwan has gone into coalition politics and opined that this arrangement is likely to raise certain challenges in the legislature. Enquiring about Taiwanese perception about the election he invited Dr. I-Chung Lai to express his views on a range of issues including resurgence of Kuomintang (KMT) Party in the recent elections\, Democratic People’s Party (DPP) and KMT’s present attitude towards the 1992 consensus\, One China policy and potential reunification with China. Amb. Chinoy also asked Dr. Lai about Taiwanese understanding of the United States (US)’ commitment towards Taiwan’s defence in the light of present tensions\, the unacceptable means of reunification for Taiwan\, probable Japanese position in an event of crisis in Taiwan Straits and reversal of recognition of Taiwan by Nauru.  \nThanking Amb. Chinoy for his observations\, Dr. I-Chung Lai expressed that the delegation visit reflected India’s importance in Taiwan’s strategy and Taipei’s intention to convey to New Delhi\, its strategic outlook and plans for India-Taiwan ties post the elections. \nElaborating on Taiwan election results he contented that while William Lai Ching-te received forty percent of the votes\, it did not mean that the other sixty percent opposed him. The Chinese interpretation that William Lai Ching-te’s position on China-Taiwan ties represents a minority view is incorrect. He emphasised that the election results do not reflect how Taiwanese feel about China-Taiwan relations. Commenting on the 1992 consensus\, which is favoured by China\, Dr. Lai informed that majority of the Taiwanese consider the consensus as a thing of past\, especially after President Tsai Ing-wen declared in a public address in 2019 that Taiwan never accepted the 1992 consensus. He contended that future cross strait politics will have to take the general public view into consideration as Taiwan is a democracy. \nWith regard to US policy towards Taiwan\, Dr. Lai\, citing the Taiwan Relations Act and US’ Six Assurances to Taiwan\, asserted that US does not recognise Taiwan as part of PRC. On Nauru’s breaking off of diplomatic ties\, he opined that it demonstrated continuation of PRC’s coercion politics vis-à-vis Taiwan. He observed that Taiwan’s national strength and international standing will not be affected due to Nauru’s actions and that Taiwan will not engage in chequebook diplomacy to gain diplomatic recognition. Dr. Lai observed that the Beijing Government is unlikely to change its policy towards Taiwan\, recognising the new political reality. However\, due to China’s own internal economic troubles\, interest in stabilising ties with the US and lack of military capability to launch invasion on Taiwan\, the possibility of military conflict with Taiwan at present is low. Touching briefly on Japan’s position on Taiwan contingency\, Dr. Lai opined that although Tokyo will be compelled to act due to alliance commitment with the US and threats perceived to its own security\, the extent of Japan’s involvement in active combat scenario is uncertain. He concluded by stating that developing relations with powerful and friendly countries remains top priority for Taiwan. \nFollowing\, Dr. Lai’s presentation\, Amb. Chinoy queried whether DPP still subscribed to the notion of ‘One China’ and whether Taiwan continues to engage in developmental activities with the countries who sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. \nResponding to these questions\, Dr. Lai informed that the idea of ‘One China’ was once temporarily entertained to facilitate cooperation between Republic of China (ROC) and PRC. However\, PRC’s interpretation of ‘One China’ policy is unacceptable to Taiwan. With regard to Taiwan-Nauru ties\, he informed that the future of bilateral cooperation depends on Nauru’s future reaction because there is precedent in Taiwan to continue programme assistance to countries who broke off diplomatic ties. \nFinally\, Amb. Chinoy enquired about Chinese goals in eschewing military tensions of the type seen in the aftermath of Nancy Pelosi’s visit. Dr. Lai affirmed that improving diplomatic ties with the US is one of the major goals. Also\, as the repercussions to trade which happened due to the military blockade was serious\, Beijing and other major powers like the US and Japan are reluctant to let escalate tensions to that level. \nMr. Fei Fan Lin\, member of the delegation\, concurred with Dr. Lai’s observations about lack of public support for the 1992 consensus in Taiwan. He informed that the Taiwanese consider ROC\, Taiwan to be an independent sovereign and perceive no need to declare independence again. \nFollowing the exchange\, the Chair then opened the floor for question-and-answer session. \nQ&A Session\nA question from the Indian side concerned the issue of national identity in Taiwan\, and the possibility of a ‘reconciliation of hearts’ between the Chinese and Taiwanese people. To this question\, Dr. Lai answered by explaining that due to the internationalisation of the cross-Strait issue\, other countries\, such as Japan\, the Republic of Korea\, the Philippines and Australia\, not to mention the United States\, have a voice in the resolution of any conflict\, and the cross- Strait dispute is no longer a binary one between opposing regimes. He also noted that China’s perception of Taiwan is that it is a vehicle to contain China with the collaboration of the United States. Mr. Lin also added to the answer to the above question by noting that President Tsai Ing-Wen had been careful during her tenure to cultivate a stance of equivocating Taiwan with the ROC. He noted that this was a stance the majority of Taiwanese people support and approve of. In response to another question on the impact of a US-China thaw on Taiwan in the coming four years\, Dr. Lai noted that the cross-Strait issue is no longer dependent on the US-China-Taiwan trilateral\, but has become truly internationalised. As evidence\, he offered the new recognitions afforded to the importance of Taiwan by the leaders of Japan\, the Republic of Korea\, Australia and the Philippines\, as well as by democracies in Europe. \nAnother question from the Indian side concerned the movements of the youth vote in the recently-concluded general election\, and whether the return of the DPP to power indicated support among the young for independence. Mr. Lin provided the answer to this question\, informing the audience that the DPP had always embraced support from the youth. However\, the reason the current election has thrown up surprising results (election of the DPP on forty percent vote share\, emergence of the TPP as a third force) is because voters were in general fatigued by establishment parties such as the DPP and KMT. They were not concerned by national security issues\, but instead voted on bread-and-butter issues such as housing prices and costs of living. Mr. Lin argued that the TPP\, despite the high rates of support it received\, does not have a positive policy platform\, and revealed that the DPP is well aware of the need to bring back young voters to the DPP. \nMembers of the Indian side also inquired about whether China had succeeded in the general election in using disinformation and economic coercion to swing votes. By way of an answer\, the Taiwanese side presented a mixed picture. In the field of economic coercion they were willing to concede that there was some limited effect of the suspension of tariff benefits accruing to trade with Taiwan under the ECFA signed with China\, but noted that the impact was limited as the share of exports to China from Taiwan are declining as the New Southbound Policy diversified destinations for Taiwanese goods\, with marked increases noted in trade with the US\, Japan\, ROK and Europe. India was held out by the Taiwanese side as a new frontier where trade opportunities could be diversified in future. Disinformation\, however\, has been successful in the assessment by the Taiwanese side\, with Chinese-origin propaganda deepening divides in society that have only partially been filled. \nIn terms of future concerns\, the Taiwanese side flagged two issues in particular: worries that the KMT\, which has majorities in both the national legislature and municipalities\, would pursue independent (party-level) negotiations with the CPC; and the legal hurdles standing in the way of repealing or renegotiating important economic agreements with the mainland to counter economic coercion. \nA final query from the Indian side concerned the prospects for US-Taiwan defence cooperation in light of the recent election results. In his answer to the question\, Dr. Lai asserted that the impact on US-Taiwan defence ties would become clearer when the identity of the incoming speaker and vice-speaker of the central legislature (the Legislative Yuan) becomes clear. However\, he believed\, existing projects such as Taiwan’s indigenous submarine programme would continue irrespective of the party in charge. \nBefore concluding\, Amb. Chinoy took the opportunity to ask a set of questions to the Taiwanese side. Firstly\, he inquired about the impact of Donald Trump returning to power in the US in 2024. Dr. Lai answered briefly that Taiwan enjoys bipartisan consensus in the US\, and that the previous Trump administration’s record on Taiwan was very good\, with several initiatives carried forward by the Biden administration. As such\, there was no reason for concern. \nSecondly\, Amb. Chinoy inquired as to the Taiwanese side’s assessment of the US response should China attempt to occupy only the outlying islands such as Jinmen or Matsu. Dr. Lai said that whereas the Pescadores Islands are covered under the US-Taiwan Mutual Defence Treaty and the Taiwan Relations Act\, Quemoy and Matsu are grey areas. In any case\, he noted that an occupation of these islands would be sure to meet an armed response from Taiwan. However\, the US response\, if any\, would be contingent on circumstances. \nFinally\, Amb. Chinoy inquired whether there had been any risk assessment of the possibility that Xi Jinping’s China Dream 2049 project would be incomplete without reunification with Taiwan\, with the implication that he would take action before that date to ensure reunification. Dr. Lai answered that discussions in Taiwan on the China Dream are divided into two camps\, one arguing that the China Dream must be completed before reunification is to be attempted\, whereas the other argues that reunification is a necessary precondition to the China Dream. However\, the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the Chinese economy has put a dent in Xi Jinping’s purported legitimacy\, which is predicated on continuous economic growth. Dr. Lai held that the China Dream is Xi’s personal project\, not a “sacred manifesto” on the lines of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping’s policies\, which were party lines followed by all members of the government. As such\, should Xi leave the stage in China\, there is no guarantee that his successor would follow through on it. \nAfter the conclusion of the question-and-answer session\, the Chair declared an end to the meeting.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/event-report-on-the-prospect-foundation-delegation-visit-to-mp-idsa-2
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR