T

he China-Indonesia partnership is not just another bilateral arrangement in the universe of international relations. China is the world'€™s most populous country while Indonesia is the fourth-most. Given their combined population and the remarkable economic growth that both countries have achieved in the past several years, their relationship has become an important pillar in the construct of a peaceful and prosperous East Asia and even the world at large. Translated into a feasible roadmap and consistently implemented, the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two could occasion a new surge of dynamism in both countries.

But for this to take place, there must be long-term peace and stability in the East Asian neighborhood. At the same time, both countries must be able to effectively address the internal challenges confronting them. Both know that they must uplift the bottom part of their population pyramid. On the part of Indonesia, if this cannot be done, then it must bid goodbye to its hope of becoming one of the world'€™s major economies by 2030.

These are the very same things that the rest of the region needs: equitable economic growth in a climate of internal stability and external security. That is why Indonesia and its like-minded neighbors have set their sights on building a network of regional mechanisms driven by middle powers in which no country is dominant and no country is excluded.

This is the vision at the heart of the notion of '€œdynamic equilibrium'€. It involves the creation and maintenance of a network of relationships that build trust, and a will to work for the common welfare, so that the rise of one nation will not be seen as being at the expense of others but as a driving force for common prosperity.

The centerpieces of that regional architecture of dynamic equilibrium are the enhanced ASEAN institutions, including the expanded East Asia Summit that now includes Russia and the United States, the ASEAN Defense Ministers'€™ Meeting, the ASEAN Defense Ministers'€™ Meeting Plus and the ASEAN Maritime Forum.

These institutions and mechanisms must be strengthened so that they become more effective instruments for peace and serve as avenues for the exercise of soft power and the demonstration of transparency.

Peace is never easy to achieve, especially in the kind of world we live in. There is a view held by classical historians as to what causes the kind of war that brings about a general state of conflagration among nations '€” and that is the presence of an established power that wants to maintain the status quo and the rise of a new power that wants to change the status quo.

According to the scenario constructed by these historians and various international commentators, the established power, which is obviously the United States, and the rising power, which is discernibly China, will inexorably move toward a major armed conflict. The established power will preserve the status quo by all means, while the rising power seeks to change it at any cost. This, in spite of the fact that the United States and China are taking efforts to engage each other in a peaceful manner, and that there is an active dialogue going on between the two.

This conflict should not happen. It must not be allowed to happen. But what can Indonesia do and what can ASEAN do to avert such a dire possibility?

On the part of Indonesia, I think it will help if it is written into a new set of Broad Guidelines of State Policy that Indonesia should help bring about a world of greater peace by working to encourage greater participation by both the United States and China in confidence-building measures to be carried out in the Asia-Pacific region. After all, Indonesia has strong diplomatic access to China by virtue of their comprehensive and strategic partnership, and just as strong diplomatic access to the United States by virtue of its comprehensive partnership with that country.

On the part of ASEAN, the member countries should not take ASEAN centrality as a given fact of regional life. It should be regarded as a payoff that they must earn every day or else they lose it. And one way of ensuring their hold on that centrality is to get their act together, to anticipate or at least to quickly respond to the rapidly changing regional situation, take concerted action and speak with one voice.

Lamentably, ASEAN has not made a vigorous diplomatic response to the current situation in the South China Sea. Neither has it made a vigorous diplomatic response to the situation in Thailand.

ASEAN certainly needs to be a stronger advocate of the values enshrined in its own charter. And it needs to be a stronger and more persistent advocate of regional peace than it is today.

And, I think, the same goes for all countries in the Asia-Pacific region. The United States needs to de-emphasize the military aspects of its policy of rebalancing and concentrate more on its economic and sociocultural engagement. The same can be said of China: It should be making use of its immense soft power by intensifying its already deep cultural influence on the countries of the Asia-Pacific region.

And, finally, there is the Indonesian proposal for an Indo-Pacific Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation. This is an endeavor to expand the scope of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia to cover the larger Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time to make the political commitments to the 2011 Declaration of the East Asia Summit on the Principles of Mutually Beneficial Relations legally binding.

During the 24th ASEAN Summit in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, the ASEAN Chair endorsed it in principle and several other members have spoken favorably of it. But Indonesia itself still has to flesh out its own proposal. It has yet to launch a solid and well-studied advocacy for such a far-reaching treaty.

To my mind, this is again a test of ASEAN centrality if it can make progress toward the conclusion of such a treaty '€” an eventuality that would be a watershed in the history of the Asia-Pacific region. With such a treaty in place, there could be no clash between established powers and rising powers. A regional architecture of dynamic equilibrium would be eminently achievable. And soft power would reign supreme in the Asia-Pacific region.

Is ASEAN capable of such a grand achievement? Time will tell.

The writer is former director general for political affairs at the Foreign Ministry. He has served as chief of mission at the Indonesian embassies in Paris and Canberra and deputy permanent representative of the Indonesian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York. This article is based on a paper submitted at a recent conference in Shanghai hosted by the Taihu World Cultural Forum.