Federalism Disad

Download 0.57 Mb.
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size0.57 Mb.
1   ...   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56

Indonesian Federalism Bad: Free Trade

A) Increased Indonesian decentralization torpedoes co-op and global free trade

The Straits Times 2005

(November 30, “A Coast Guard for Singapore?” Lexis)
SINCE a high volume of shipping passes through the Malacca and Singapore straits, any serious disruption to maritime traffic there would have widespread and far-reaching detrimental impact. Happily, functional cooperation among the three littoral countries of Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia is good. The Police Coast Guard of Singapore, the Malaysian Marine Police and the Marine Police of the Riau region have met regularly for exchanges. The navies of the three countries have also exercised together regularly, albeit more on a bilateral than multilateral basis. As a result, bilateral operating procedures are in place and a degree of inter-operability has been developed at the tactical level. The ease with which maritime security issues such as the interdiction and recovery of rogue vessels, the enhancement of surveillance abilities as well as data sharing between participating navies were included in recent bilateral exercises highlights the level of confidence developed between the respective units at the tactical level. This confidence is about to get a boost as exercises are multilateralised. For example, trilateral coordinated patrols (Malsindo) among the three countries were begun in July last year. Recently, there was the Eye In The Sky (EiS) initiative involving Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. Moreover, the three littoral states are part of the Western Pacific Naval Symposium, a grouping of 22 navies in the Western Pacific that conducted a multilateral maritime-security sea exercise last May. Participating navies were required to share surveillance information via a locally developed data link unit. But while functional cooperation is good, each country has adopted different approaches in tackling maritime security issues, especially those posed by transnational threats. Malaysia, for example, has decided to centralise all its agencies for peacetime maritime affairs in the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA). Formed in November, the MMEA, which is akin to the US Coast Guard, is charged with maintaining law and order, preserving peace, safety and security, preventing and detecting crime, apprehending and prosecuting offenders and collecting security intelligence. It is to perform these tasks within the Malaysian maritime zone but it will come under the command and control of the Malaysian Armed Forces in emergencies, special crises or war. Indonesia, however, has opted to decentralise much of its policing functions to the provincial level. For example, its navy is no longer the sole agency responsible for maritime security. The provinces now have authority for up to 12 nautical miles of sea while the regencies are responsible for up to three nautical miles of sea. Also, the armed forces were recently placed under the defence minister, and the police force under the home affairs minister. This has diffused power as both police and military used to be under one rule previously. Singapore, on the other hand, has adopted a coordinating approach. Each of three maritime agencies is responsible for its respective area of purview while the Maritime Security Task Force coordinates their activities and looks into further ways of enhancing maritime security and promoting Singapore's broader maritime interests. The role of the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) is to regulate the port industry in Singapore, to ensure its competitiveness and also to oversee the implementation of security measures mandated by the International Maritime Organisation. The MPA also has the task of handling civilian emergencies such as oil or chemical spills from vessels passing through the Singapore Strait. The Police Coast Guard maintains physical security within Singapore's territorial waters while the Republic of Singapore Navy oversees the seaward defence of Singapore's sea lanes. Increasingly, the navy is also being assigned constabulary duties, such as the boarding of selected ships within Singapore's waters to prevent hijacking. Although functional cooperation between the navies of the three littoral countries is excellent at the tactical level, this level of proficiency is not fully extended to the operational level. With Malaysia adopting a centralised approach, Indonesia a decentralised approach and Singapore a coordinating approach, the different decision-making structures make for a lack of operational efficiency. The incompatibility of the respective command and control organisations impedes performance when it comes to both the decision-making and interdiction phases of the response chain.

B) And, that leads to nuclear extinction

Copley News Service 99 (December 1st)

For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Indonesian Federalism = Secession

(grab impact from the generic secession module)

Indonesian federalism sparks separatism and causes state dissolution.

Manila Standard, 7/28/05. “FEDERALISM NO PANACEA.”

As in Japan, a federal union of semi-independent states in Indonesia would have encouraged separatism, as indeed the weakening of the central government after the fall of Suharto has encouraged separatist movements in Aceh, Manado and elsewhere. (Largely Catholic East Timor separated from predominantly Muslim Indonesia during Suharto's watch, with the active encouragement of the western [i.e. nominally Christian] media.) Federalism is more suitable for countries with large, contiguous land masses - such as Russia, Canada, the US, Brazil, Australia, India, Mexico and Germany - where centrifugal forces have less appeal. Yet even among these examples, there are separatist movements in Canada, Russia and India. Archipelagic countries (Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines) are better off with unitary states. The recent threat of certain Filipino mayors and governors, to secede from the Republic if President Arroyo is forcibly removed from power, may be dismissed as harmless political noise, but they may be aberrations of our personalistic culture, in the absence of a nationalistic one. In which case, federalism will just lead to the break-up of the Republic on the whim of regional political bosses.

Federalism in Indonesia stokes secessionist tendencies.

Catharin E. Dalpino, fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. September 2001. Brookings Institution, Policy Brief #89. “Indonesia at the Crossroads.” http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb89.htm

The greatest challenge to Indonesia's internal stability is the management of the numerous communal conflicts and secessionist movements in the provinces, which have erupted or become worse in the post-Suharto era. Each is a unique situation, but all have been exacerbated by a lack of attention by the Indonesian government in recent years as political elites have struggled among themselves for power in a changing system. The 1999 law to decentralize government is beginning to take hold and could lay the groundwork for more equitable and amicable relations between Jakarta and the provinces in the long-term. But in the short-run, because central government controls have loosened while provincial controls are not yet established, decentralization may only be pouring fuel on the flames of these conflicts.
Secession in Indonesia sparks secessionism throughout Asia.

Catharin E. Dalpino, fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. September 2001. Brookings Institution, Policy Brief #89. “Indonesia at the Crossroads.” http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb89.htm

Once a critical 'domino' in the cold war Asian security arena, Indonesia has new significance in the post-cold war world as a model for other countries in the process of rapid political and social change. As a Muslim-majority country, Indonesia's democratic experiment offers lessons for other societies with significant Muslim populations that are emerging from authoritarian rule. As the most ethnically diverse country in Asia, Jakarta's ability (or failure) to accommodate communal differences while maintaining national unity will influence stability in its neighbors with sharp internal divisions. If the fundamentalist province of Aceh withdraws from Indonesia, it will embolden separatist groups in the Philippine province of Mindinao and leaders of Malaysia's Islamic Party, which is gaining strength at the local level. Indonesia's experience in establishing democratic civil-military relations could have some influence on the course of political development in Burma, where the military is hinting it may restart political dialogue with the civilian opposition. The junta in Rangoon has publicly drawn parallels between the Indonesian and Burmese systems.

Impact - Devolution=Conflict


Valerie Bunce, US Peace Institute, 1999 (POLITICS AND SOCIETY, June, p. 217-8)

The formal end of the Yugoslav state, then, was preceded for at least a decade by a process in which the state, precisely and ironically in strict accordance with ideological precepts, had withered away. Economic, political, and cultural sovereignty, therefore, had been parceled, and all three forms of sovereignty resided n the republics that made up the Yugoslav confederation - or what Sabrina Rarnet aptly termed that time on the Yugoslav "international system." Thus, while struggles over power and reform immediately preceded, as well as caused, a sudden and rapid decentralization of the Czechoslovak and Soviet states, a decentralized political economy with full institutional expression was already in place by the time the Yugoslav regime and state came into serious question.


Carol Salnik Leff, Political Science Professor, 1999 (WORLD POLITICS, June, p. 224-5)

By the period of multiple transitions in 1990, therefore, the center no longer held the cards to coordinate a policy of state maintenance. It was forced to rely on the constitutional courts for adjudication of republican sovereignty initiatives and helpless to enforce court decisions, which republics systematically flouted. The center had lost control of the agenda of constitutional revision. Instead those battles were increasingly fought directly between and among the republics, within the federal presidency, and bilaterally, as the framework of federal coordination broke down. It was the refusal of Milosevic of Serbia to negotiate a more confederal model as much as the resistance of the deadlocked federal government that set the stage for the Croatian and Slovenian exodus from the state in June 1991. Once again, the republics seized the initiative from the center in determining the course of negotiations, although in this case the outcome was a bargaining stalemate among the republics and violently contested secession.


D. Lake, Political Science Professor, 1998 (THE INTERNATIONAL SPREAD OF ETHNIC CONFLICT, Ed. D. Lake, p. 8)

When central authority declines, groups become fearful for their survival. They invest in and prepare for violence, and thereby make actual violence possible. Whether arising incrementally out of competition between groups or from extremist factions actively seeking to destroy ethnic peace, state weakness is a necessary precondition for violent ethnic conflict to erupt.

Devolution t/ case – increases poverty


John D. Donahue, JFK School of Government, 1997 (DISUNITED STATES, p. 163)

It is by no means certain that America will be able to reverse growing economic inequality and the erosion of the middle class, no matter how we structure our politics. Devolution, however, will worsen the odds. Shared prosperity, amid the maelstrom of economic change tearing away at the industrial underpinnings of middle-class culture, is an artifact of policy. Policies to shore up the middle class include work-based antipoverty efforts that become both more important and more expensive as unskilled jobs evaporate; relentless investments in education and job training; measures to strengthen employees' leverage in the workplaces; and a more progressive tilt in the overall burden of taxation. The individual states - each scrambling to lure mobile capital, fearful of losing business and well-off residents to lower-tax rivals,, anxious to minimize their burden of needy citizens, -- will find such policies nearly impossible to sustain. As Washington sheds responsibilities and interstate rivalry intensifies, only a small-government agenda becomes realistic.

1   ...   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page