Tim Huxley – författare

Intensifying geopolitical rivalries, rising defence spending and the proliferation of the latest military technology across Asia suggest that the region is set for a prolonged period of strategic contestation. None of the three competing visions for the future of Asian order – a US-led ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’, a Chinese-centred order, or the ASEAN-inspired ‘Indo-Pacific Outlook’ – is likely to prevail in the short to medium term. In the absence of a new framework, the risk of open conflict is heightened, and along with it the need for effective mechanisms to maintain peace and stability.

As Asia’s leaders seek to rebuild their economies and societies in the wake of COVID-19, they would do well to reflect upon the lessons offered by the pandemic and their applicability in the strategic realm. The societies that have navigated the crisis most effectively have been able to do so by putting in place stringent protective measures. Crisis-management and -avoidance mechanisms – and even, in the longer term, wider arms control – can be seen as the strategic equivalent of such measures, and as such they should be pursued with urgency in Asia to reduce the risks of an even greater calamity.

Intensifying geopolitical rivalries, rising defence spending and the proliferation of the latest military technology across Asia suggest that the region is set for a prolonged period of strategic contestation. None of the three competing visions for the future of Asian order – a US-led ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’, a Chinese-centred order, or the ASEAN-inspired ‘Indo-Pacific Outlook’ – is likely to prevail in the short to medium term. In the absence of a new framework, the risk of open conflict is heightened, and along with it the need for effective mechanisms to maintain peace and stability.

As Asia’s leaders seek to rebuild their economies and societies in the wake of COVID-19, they would do well to reflect upon the lessons offered by the pandemic and their applicability in the strategic realm. The societies that have navigated the crisis most effectively have been able to do so by putting in place stringent protective measures. Crisis-management and -avoidance mechanisms – and even, in the longer term, wider arms control – can be seen as the strategic equivalent of such measures, and as such they should be pursued with urgency in Asia to reduce the risks of an even greater calamity.

Since the collapse of President Suharto''s New Order regime in 1998 and the international intervention in East Timor in 1999, there has been much speculation in South-east Asia and the West over whether Indonesia - weakened by economic difficulties, social distresses and political instability - has a future as a coherent nation-state. This paper argues that although the separatist struggles in Aceh or Papua are unlikely to suceed in the foreseeable future, other problems threaten to undermine the central government''s control.

Communal disputes have led to chronic violence in Maluku, Central Sulawesi, and Kalimantan. Simultaneously, tension between Islamic and secular political forces has grown. Indonesia''s disarray has prompted international concern over an array of security threats, including contagious secessionism, Islamic terrorism, the movement through Indonesia of asylum-seekers, piracy and environmental dangers. In order to contain these security implications of Indonesia''s protracted crisis, concerned governments should continue assisting its fragile reform process, particularly by helping Jakarta to manage the country''s massive international debt. However, they should also coordinate their contingency planning for a further crumbling of Jakarta''s authority.

Since the collapse of President Suharto''s New Order regime in 1998 and the international intervention in East Timor in 1999, there has been much speculation in South-east Asia and the West over whether Indonesia - weakened by economic difficulties, social distresses and political instability - has a future as a coherent nation-state. This paper argues that although the separatist struggles in Aceh or Papua are unlikely to suceed in the foreseeable future, other problems threaten to undermine the central government''s control.

Communal disputes have led to chronic violence in Maluku, Central Sulawesi, and Kalimantan. Simultaneously, tension between Islamic and secular political forces has grown. Indonesia''s disarray has prompted international concern over an array of security threats, including contagious secessionism, Islamic terrorism, the movement through Indonesia of asylum-seekers, piracy and environmental dangers. In order to contain these security implications of Indonesia''s protracted crisis, concerned governments should continue assisting its fragile reform process, particularly by helping Jakarta to manage the country''s massive international debt. However, they should also coordinate their contingency planning for a further crumbling of Jakarta''s authority.