 Our guests and friends from Indonesia here today for the Indonesia Conference at CSIS. I'd like to welcome, in particular, Minister Marty Nadelegawa, just arrived in Washington and came straight here. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for joining us. And my good friend and co-conspirator, Ambassador Dino Dejal, thank you so much. The same is true for Joe Yun. Joe Yun has been a great leader of the U.S.-Indonesia relationship and the U.S.-Asian relationship, and Joe, it's wonderful to see you here today. What we're set about today is trying to put some new energy and ideas, policy ideas, into the U.S.-Indonesia relationship. CSIS has dedicated a large portion of its research capabilities in the Southeast Asia Chair this year to the U.S.-Indonesia relationship and trying to put some muscle and sinews on the very good framework that's been created in the comprehensive partnership, the U.S.-Indonesia comprehensive partnership. So we designed this conference today, the Indonesia Conference at CSIS, to look into that relationship. How do we build mutual trust? How do we set vision for the future for our two countries? What are the ideas that we together can implement to move this relationship forward? So I think we have a tremendous agenda today. We're going to look at leadership opportunities. We're going to look at the foreign policy and security relationship. And we're going to importantly look at the trade and economic relationship and the opportunities therein. I'd like to thank some of the people that have made this program possible. And that includes incredible support from the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia, who's been a partner from the beginning. Great support from the U.S.-Asian Business Council. Alex Feldman, thank you, Alex. And the U.S.-Indonesian Society. Ambassador David Merrill and his team have been very supportive. We want to thank them. Special thanks to Hashim Jojo Harikusomo and the Arsari Foundation for funding the Sumitra Chair. And then a very special mention to the Putra Sampurna Foundation, which is a sponsor of today's event. For those of you who are tuning in via new media, this entire discussion will be streamed live on the CSIS website. You can follow it on Twitter. If anyone here is not following Dino Dijal on Twitter, I recommend that you get on board. He's one of the big whales in the Twitterverse. But for Twitter information, you can follow at Southeast Asia, DC, at CSIS. And the hashtag for today is CSIS Live. Without further ado, I'd like to invite my colleague and friend, Dino Dijal, to make some opening remarks. Dino, please. Thank you very much, Ernie. And I would like to recognize my good friend and boss, Foreign Minister Martin Atalagawa, who has arrived this morning and who will deliver a keynote address. Also, Joe Yun, Ambassador Merpuri. I have Alex Feldman, David Merrill, Ambassador Tanswe of Myanmar. He's here somewhere. Ambassador Winston and all the other friends. Thank you for coming here today. And I want to thank CSIS for organizing this event. Murray, obviously Ernie, and everybody has been very helpful. CSIS, Foreign Minister, is one of the best think-tanks in America. That is, of course, according to CSIS. That's true. And also, our parliamentarian, Hayano Isman, who has come all the way, he came last night and he's leaving this afternoon back to Indonesia. So thank you also for being here. I don't remember the last time there was a full-day conference on Indonesia in Washington, D.C. And when Ernie came to me with the idea, I thought it was a very good idea for two reasons. One is that ever since I became ambassador here, everyone is just fixated with China. And they should be, and it's very understandable. But you cannot fully understand Asia unless you also understand all the other players, including Indonesia. A second reason is that I've been managing U.S.-Indonesia relations for quite some time. And there was a time in the past that when Washington pays attention to a particular region or particular country, it's because of a crisis. It's a crisis-driven attention. And I think this partly explains U.S.-Indonesia relations in the past. But this conference is being held, not because there's a crisis in Indonesia, but exactly the opposite, because in Indonesia today is a country whose democracy, economic progress, and foreign policy is relevant to the Indo-Pacific. So indeed, in the last decade, there has been significant changes in Indonesia's foreign policy. We remain committed to independent and active foreign policy. But in recent years, we have evolved new concepts, what is called a million friends and zero enemy, which reflects a new strategic luxury for Indonesia. A time when we look at the world and we see no country that we regard as enemy and no country that regards Indonesia as an enemy. No other previous Indonesian generation had ever this strategic luxury before. Another concept is all direction foreign policy, which means we can be pro-west, we can be pro-east, pro-north, pro-south. All is an open game, so long as it is in line with our national interests. And the concept of dynamic equilibrium. My foreign minister will talk about that. It's an assumption that the region will continue to evolve and Indonesia will need to reposition itself in that evolving power balance. But all these concepts, million friends, zero enemy, dynamic equilibrium, all direction foreign policy, they are all optimistic and opportunity-driven assessment of the new landscape of the region. What kind of landscape it is? Well, it's a very interesting and exciting landscape. It is a landscape where countries are changing, relationships are changing, and the region is changing. It is a landscape where even Asia is discovering Asia. For example, Indonesia has long had relations with India, but even now we are rediscovering India in terms of its economic potentials, its technology, its films, its culture, and so on. Chinese tourists are now flocking to Southeast Asia, to Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, including Indonesia. Asian youth are dancing to the Korean Gangnam. And investors are now renewing their love affair with the Philippines. But all across Asia, Asia too is discovering Asia. There's now an enormous diplomatic and economic space being created throughout the Asia Pacific, the Indo-Pacific. The number of democracies and open societies in the Indo-Pacific is at its highest ever in history, and the number of diplomatic partnerships are also growing phenomenally. Now, in the wake of all this, there are three questions that we must answer. One, how do we identify and seize strategic opportunities? Opportunities are always there, but a lot of times or sometimes we don't always see it. Second, how do we build strategic trust? There's a deficit of strategic trust in some parts of the Indo-Pacific, not just among new friends, but also among old friends. This is something that needs to be earned and refreshed and renewed all the time. And the third question, third challenge, is how do we transform the region of Indo-Pacific into a coherent and cooperative geopolitical and geoeconomic space? Now, as we try to meet these challenges, we will have to account to a number of realities on the ground. What are these realities? One, there's still no such thing as an Indo-Pacific community or identity. Even the term Indo-Pacific is still largely elusive in the public mind throughout the region. Secondly, the sub-regions in the Indo-Pacific have their own dynamics. Northeast Asia have its own dynamics, Southeast Asia have its own dynamics, Southeast Asia have its own dynamics, and these things need time to evolve. They don't go on the same speed. Third reality, some disputes, particularly territorial disputes and jurisdictional disputes will take a long time to settle. Now, this includes, of course, the South China Sea, conflicts, which means our job is more to manage it rather than to settle it at least in the short and medium term. And the fourth reality is that regional architecture in the region, within the region, will need time to evolve, to synergize, and maybe even simplify. They're moving a bit faster than the average speed, but they will take time to evolve. But the fifth and most important reality in the region is that there's an explosion of possibilities and opportunities throughout the region. The possibilities, well, who would ever thought that the United States and Indonesia would ever have a comprehensive partnership, which we do have now. In the 50s, there's a government who fell into the Sukheman Cabinet in Indonesia because it wanted closer relations with the United States. But now, we have a 21st century partnership. Whoever thought that the United States and Vietnam would have a very active economic and military cooperation given their difficult history. Whoever thought that Indonesia and Timor-Leste would have one of the best relationships among neighbors in the region, again, given our very difficult history. Who had predicted the political development that is happening in Myanmar today? Two years ago, when ASEAN ambassadors were gathering around the table, no one really thought that this was possible. Who would have thought that the conflict in Aceh after 30 long years of bloody conflict would end up with a permanent peace? And whoever thought the Arab Spring would happen, right? So again, this is a region of tremendous possibilities and the opportunities are tremendous. The Asian Development Bank has said that in a positive scenario, by 2050, the GDP of Asia alone would be around $160 trillion. And there will be an additional two billion people joining the middle class and there will be, in an optimistic scenario, no poor country in the Asian region. So opportunities are tremendous and Indonesia itself, compared to about a decade ago, now have about a dozen strategic and comprehensive partnerships around the world. And this is why this conference is so important for us, because it allows us to ask questions that are relevant to how we will reorder and redefine the region. Questions such as how does America's pivot will complement or will interact with Indonesia's concept of dynamic equilibrium? Every country in the region have their own foreign policy designs. How do they all fit together? And I hope, as we all try to find answers to these questions, we will be doing what Indonesia's foreign policy has been doing in the recent years. What it is? It is the fact that we pursue our foreign policy with a forward-looking attitude, rather than being stuck or burdened with the baggage of the past. It is by being pragmatic and not being ideological and dogmatic. And third, it is by espousing a new attitude of win-win. I win by making you win and we all win together. It's a non-zero-sum game and I believe if we all employ this mindset, the future of Indo-Pacific and the future of U.S.-Indonesia relations will be bright. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dino. First of all, really warm welcome to the Foreign Minister. It is always great to see him and he's going to see Secretary Kerry, of course, in the afternoon and when the two get together, really the discussions are very useful and also very strategic. So really look forward to seeing him back at State this afternoon. First of all, really many thanks to Ernie. I think it is, for me, unimaginable. A few years ago, we would have had this kind of gathering. So many people, so many key players in U.S. foreign policy and, of course, on the business side. I think it's really a testimony to what Ernie has built in very short times. I want to give him a round of applause. And we are trying to match what Ernie is doing and I think it's a challenge, but this afternoon I'm going to testify at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on our budget request and you will see, I think very concretely, what rebalance to Asia, what our focus in Asia means, because we get more money and that's very important, you know? And in fact, our Bureau of Foreign Assistance, we are going to get, we've requested, 7.5% more money for the next fiscal year and, you know, these days, zero is new increase as far as the budget goes and so for the State Department as a whole, we'll in fact, there will be a decline of 6%. So you can imagine the kind of fight that we have to do inside to get this amount of resources and for us, that means we can do more in terms of assistance, in terms of our operations and I see many people on my side who have throughout so many years been associated with Indonesia and for me, you know, I first went to Indonesia on my second tour and at that time I went to Meda and I see my good colleague Stan Harsha and Hany over there, we worked together in the 1980s in Meda, you know? And of course we have Ted Osius who was until recently our Deputy Chief of Mission in Jakarta, now working with Ernie in CSIS. Ted, you got to come back soon, you know? Yeah. And for us, really, our relationship with Indonesia in during those decades has transformed materially and I would say the reason of this rebalance, our refocus in Asia has more to do with Indonesia than anyone else and in fact, we have a phrase within State Department, we call it rebalance within rebalance and that refers to Southeast Asia and that's where we have spent tremendous amount of effort over the last few years. I've been now back for four years and that has really taken a lot of our energy and I know in the next panel you will have my former boss, Kurt Campbell and he has been instrumental in what we do and of course along with Hillary Clinton and President Obama. And I would liken, you know, I would compare what Indonesia has done for us in Southeast Asia to that role of a Sherpa, you know? And, you know, I've never climbed Mount Everest but I know what a role of Sherpa involves and working with Indonesia, working with everything we do there requires someone to translate that for us, you know? I mean, when we joined the East Asia Summit, you know, we didn't know what phrase, for example, what phrase like ASEAN centrality meant, you know? What does it mean? You know, ASEAN unity, you know, ASEAN connectivity but these are key phrases which needed explaining to us and which Indonesia has done so well for us, you know? I don't know how many of American audiences here understand that. It will take you a while, you know? So I really want to thank our Indonesian colleagues for that. Of course, before we worked together in multilateral forums, regional issues and global issues, we had to build a structure of bilateral relationship and again, the foreign minister has been key to that. I think you will recall that he has been a foreign minister since 2009, I think fall of 2009. And, you know, if you remember the first visit Hillary Clinton ever made as secretary of the state was to Asia and Indonesia was a key part of that. And it was really during that trip the idea of comprehensive partnership came to pass. That is, the two countries, two leadership must have regular dialogue in order for things to get done and we had a rich agenda. And ever since we've been meeting at secretary's level every year and of course leaders level several times a year either in each other's capitals or on the margins of big meetings like G20, East Asia Summit and so on. So that was key. And so when you have ministers meet regularly reviewing your work, I am, you know, forced to do work for that, you know. And we have each item, you know, and you can go through the list, education, what we've done in education, you know, bringing together university partnership. And that was tremendous deal that really brought together and I think we are now beginning to turn around kind of decade-long decline in number of exchanges we have between Indonesia and United States. On security issues, we had some tough challenges, legacies of the past, those two overcome. And I mean, I don't know many of you recall, you know, the issues we've had with KOPASU, security assistance and so much of that has been overcome. And again, you know, I really do want to thank foreign ministers leadership on that. Trade and investment. I know there are a lot of business people here. The other day I met with Doug and other American Chamber of Commerce and of course there's going to be issues. I mean, in a relationship that has billions and so much money at stake, there are always going to be issues. But we built a framework where those issues can be discussed, rationalized and problems overcome. And again, I think that's been a very key component. As I see it, and I think I'm sure the minister and secretary will get into it this afternoon, we really have to now look beyond what we have done, what we can do together in terms of global challenges. And I think that's the next area where Indonesia and United States, in the comprehensive partnership, we have to get into more. I mean, what are these challenges? They are obvious but they need a lot of work. One is on climate change. We have been talking a lot bilaterally together but I think we need to now raise that on what we do together in terms of partnership, in terms of what we're going to do in multilateral issues. Second issue I think will be cyber security. This is a big problem throughout the region and the world. And so we are looking forward to working with the Indonesian side on that. And then there are trouble spots that we've been talking and we again need to step up. These include Middle East peace issues, of course Syria issues, and within Asia-Pacific area, North Korean nuclear issues. And I think again those, we need to form a partnership where Indonesia and US work together. Indonesia has a long history of really dynamic foreign ministers. Some of them come rapidly to mind. Adam Malik for example. And then you have Ali Alatas. So really I would say this foreign minister follows in that tradition. So we're very honored to have him here. So I'd like to now listen to him for a while. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mr. Joseph Yoon for your kind, not only your kind introduction just now, but also for sharing with us your thoughts on the state of Indonesia-U.S. relations, which are obviously echo and endorse. And especially for really anticipating what I had wanted to suggest to Secretary Kerry to be honest, on how to further elevate the quality of our relationship by discussing as well a number of global issues of common concern. And thus when we speak of comprehensive partnership, it will be one that's not only comprehensive bilaterally, but also comprehensive in the global issues that we come to discuss in a partnership manner. Thank you for that, Mr. Joseph Yoon, for your introduction. And may I also join others, I'm sure, in this room who wish to express their thanks to Pa Erni and Pa Dino Jalal, Ambassador Jalal and the CIS team and the Embassy for making possible this morning's event. As Pa Dino Jalal had said, this is a very precious opportunity for many of us to compare notes and share ideas on matters relating to Indonesia. And I'm very grateful and I'd like to express appreciation, especially to Ambassador Jalal and Pa Erni for making this event possible. Looking around the room, I wish also to acknowledge the presence of many friends and colleagues who have been instrumental in raising Indonesia-US relations. Among others, I see of course Pa Hayano Isman has been acknowledged just now, your participation in this forum really reflects how Indonesia-US relations is not only anchored by government-to-government relations, but also between parliaments, as is any democracy's relations between the parliaments are critical if we are to have a really sustainable and therefore even more comprehensive relationships. Of course, I wish to also acknowledge the presence of Mr. Alex Feldman of the US-ASEAN Business Council and David Merrill of Yusindo and so many others in this room who have been, as I said, instrumental in promoting Indonesia-US relations and, not least, Ambassador's Excellencies accredited here to Washington. Dear friends and colleagues, I have been asked to share some thoughts on the de-Indonesian perspective on the Indo-Pacific. To be honest, I'm a little bit wary to describe what I'm about to say as being de-Indonesian perspective. Perhaps an Indonesian perspective will be more appropriate because I'm taking a little bit of taking liberties here in wanting to take advantage of this more informal setting to test some ideas and to float some ideas outside the formal governmental context. I've been asked to share some thoughts on the Indo-Pacific, a term that as Dino had said earlier has become increasingly used, common, but not as prevalent as many other lexicon of geopolitics, but certainly ever more relevant. In terms of geography, when we speak of the Indo-Pacific region, it obviously refers to an important triangular spanning two oceans, the Pacific and the Indian oceans, bounded by Japan in the north, Australia in the southeast and India in the southwest. And notably, notably here with Indonesia as its center. As a result, in this largest archipelagic state in the world, amidst its archipelagic waters are found some of the most strategic sea lanes in the world, connecting the Indian and Pacific oceans, serving as highways for the movement of global trade, as well as of people and the associated ideas and cultural expressions they bring forth. In the political economic domain, it refers to an area encompassing some of the most dynamic economies in the world, with rising role not only in the evolving global economic architecture, but also in the political arena as well. Today, the Indo-Pacific region is an economic power in its own right, serving as the engine for global economic growth. And not least, the term Indo-Pacific brings into focus the reality of the interconnection between the futures of the Indian and Pacific oceans. Whereas in the past, perhaps one may identify distinct and separate regional cooperative architecture for the Indian and Pacific oceans, the future may see greater emphasis on architectures that actually connects the two areas, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Oceans. As a matter of fact, some existing regional cooperative framework already reflects this connectivity between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. The ASEAN Regional Forum, for example, obviously bring in countries that are both in the Pacific as well as in the Indian Ocean. And more significantly perhaps the East Asia Summit, which despite its nomenclature at Indonesia's initiatives includes India, Australia and New Zealand as original members. Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, therefore, given the geography of Indonesia, the future course of the Indo-Pacific region is obviously a source of tremendous interest for Indonesia. And today, and on this occasion, I'd like to highlight one specific challenge that we face when we ponder and consider matters relating to the Indo-Pacific region. Essentially, what I wanted to share some ideas and thoughts on is on how can we maintain the Pacific in the Indo-Pacific. In other words, how may countries in the region work in common to maintain peace and stability that have served them well in the Indo-Pacific region. A key objective, I believe, after all is said and done, given that the many decades of peace and stability in the area have been instrumental, they have been precious in making possible the pursuit of economic development, progress and prosperity by the countries of the Indo-Pacific region. A so-called peace dividend. Yet, notwithstanding the obvious opportunities that are abound in front of the Pacific and Indian oceans, rim countries, at the same time, a number of challenges also await. And let me just highlight three of them and to offer some thoughts in response with some examples simply to illustrate. First and foremost, and I think this is the point that the ambassador had mentioned before, I believe that one of the first challenges that we face is the challenges stemming from a trust deficit in our region. Just to give an example on the Korean Peninsula while the Indo-Pacific region has long, unfortunately, factoring the challenges on the Korean Peninsula, recent developments may suggest a significant leap in the nature of the threat, the sharpening of distrust and its attendant cycle of tensions. And the stakes are actually getting ever higher. A nuclear capable a nuclear capable DPRK, for example, may actually be altering the security equation proliferation pressures not unlike, for example, in the Indian subcontinent may ensue. Absent some kind of renewed efforts to promote dialogue and security, to promote trust and confidence I am concerned that countries in the region may feel compelled to pursue guarantees of its own security at the expense of the other and indeed ultimately to itself. Not wishing to oversimplify I believe that at the heart of the various complex and interrelated challenges of the Korean Peninsula like many a potential conflict situation in our part of the world lie the issue of trust deficit. Worst case assumptions of the other's intentions feeding action and reaction a vicious cycle of increasing tensions and of deepening distrust. A situation where the perceived advantage of preemptive action lead to hit or do minor incident to escalate to a major crisis and even to open conflict. But I must say the most recent development has been especially encouraging in the sense that ultimately all the parties concerned certainly of the past of the United States and the Republic of Korea have been able to project and signal in the most indirect form perhaps of the need to begin to draw down and bring the situation under better management. Essentially I believe that this means we must have the means to disrupt or interrupt the often apparently relentless rush towards conflict to end the sense of inevitability of conflict. Sometimes as a third country, third party outside those who are directly involved you can see almost this sense of inevitability rush towards conflict. In this sort of occasions we must have the courage to intervene, to disrupt this apparent trend. Trust and confidence must be built and nurtured. The exercise of restraint must be rewarded and even especially reciprocated. Mutual restraint. Hence, communications need to be established formal and informal, governmental and non-governmental. The establishment of lines of communications especially especially in times of crisis in my view are not signs of weakness or acquiescence rather they are a means to decipher intent they are a means to convey intent without prejudicing or sacrificing principled positions. A Pacific Indo-Pacific therefore requires in my view modalities to build mutual trust modalities to build confidence to substitute the all too familiar vicious cycle of tensions with virtual cycle of trust and confidence building. It requires a willingness to take risks to be out there to have certain ideas offered and not properly reciprocated immediately but I believe given what's at stake sometimes often times it is important for countries to take those calculated risks the second challenge I'd like to identify and this is a point that Ambassador Dino as well has mentioned the challenge of unresolved territorial claims ours like many other regions is not exempt from such unresolved territorial claims maritime from the east China sea to the south China sea land borders affecting major countries in the Indo-Pacific region sharing long common land boundaries by their very nature such unresolved territorial claims often defy prompt resolution decades long and painstaking negotiations are not uncommon further burdening already complex legal and technical issues are past history often case not contributing to conditions conducive to the peaceful and negotiated resolution of unresolved territorial claims however I do believe that unresolved territorial claims disputes even do not have to equate conflict we can manage them and we can even hopefully one day resolve them as well in this connection I believe that where the realities of territorial disputes are obviously evident this must be acknowledged by the parties concern that we cannot afford an outlook of denial of a revisionist outlook where disputes have previously been acknowledged and subsequently an attempt to create new realities on the ground or at sea suggesting none exist such an acknowledgement of territorial disputes can be done without prejudicing or compromising the principal position of each of the parties but by doing so then the claimant parties can do away with the constant testing constant prodding of the others resolve and intentions of dangerous and destabilizing showing the flag measures that may invite response from the other side escalating minor tensions to full blown crisis and risking miscalculation of intent a pacific indopacific therefore in my view requires a commitment from parties to a territorial dispute to respect certain code of behavior or code of conduct in the affected area in the South China sea context this has meant the drawing up of conduct between ASEAN and China elsewhere it may involve less formal arrangements or understandings however the essence remains avoid miscalculations or unintended crisis ultimately however where territorial dispute is prevalent a pacific indopacific must commit to peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the principles law and the charter of the other nations the third and final point that I challenge that I wish to identify is one of the management of the impact of change trust deficit and resolve territorial disputes the third point managing the impact of change and certainly our region the indopacific region has been marked by tremendous change and even I would say a transformation change and transformation within countries political as well as economic that have had ramifications far beyond their borders as a matter of fact the indopacific has been witness to some of the most dramatic to some of the most fundamental process of change as in recent decades countries like the Republic of Korea initially the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and today even Myanmar we are seeing tremendous internal changes with tremendous regional implications Southeast Asia collectively through the ASEAN political security community is also changing politically in terms of regional development security community building as well these are developments that are obviously national, domestic and yet since ASEAN, since our region have gotten it right so far it has not had any geopolitical implications and one need only to look at the situation in North Africa, in the Middle East to be reminded what was originally internal, national, political deficit, democratic deficit issues quickly became an interstate regional proxy global even type of tensions and conflict equally impactful has been the economic transformation of the Indo-Pacific region turning the economies of the region into drivers of the global economic growth as change occur in our region a new type of challenge has therefore reason essentially whether the region will witness relationship among countries that are marked by competition conflict even or by partnership the region certainly has fair share of important bilateral with potentially profound implications for the region's peace and stability and even I would say global stability as well some of these bilateral are quite obviously very obvious and very self-evident but I wanted to mention and to remind in any case you can dissect it in many ways you wish to adopt a US-centric approach then you have the important US-China bilateral US-Russia bilateral US-India bilateral but beyond this larger global so to speak and yet regional bilateral we have the more purely regional bilateral that have also important ramifications China and Japan increasingly now coming to the fore what is important and what is important and what is important now coming to the fore what kind of implications partnership or competition China Japan and Republic of Korea China and Republic of Korea and many other potential access or potential bilateral whose nature whether competitive or partnership will have a huge implication on our region in my view in my view a peaceful in the Pacific region requires a new paradigm a new perspective in seeing the evolving dynamics between this major countries relations in a way not wanting to extrapolate too much in a way not unlike that which has evolved in Southeast Asia through ASEAN many of us would recall that Southeast Asia prior to ASEAN was a region marked by interstate ASEAN Southeast Asia rivalry a region torn apart by east-west divide and now we are seeing through winstaking comfort level ASEAN way step by step approach a region that is now engaged in a community building including in the political and security domain I wonder without wanting to be too ambitious with a similar kind of a sense of Indo-Pacific or even limited basis Asia-Pacific community can be engendered and for this to happen as Sepa Dino had mentioned I believe we need to have a fresh perspective in how we look at our part of the world we have used or coined the term dynamic equilibrium to describe what we had in mind the word dynamic recognizes that change is a constant in our region let's just put away the pretence as if there will come a time when we have the perfect constellation of situation that we must try to lock in that will not be sustainable because change is inherent change is natural it cannot be resisted we must simply factor that in our view when we look at our part of the world we must be in full recognition that things are always changing, evolving but at the same time we need an equilibrium equilibrium reminds that this state of change does not imply an anarchical state of affairs either due to the unchecked preponderance of a single state we have no particular love to see our region dominated by one country of whatever color or orientation either due to unchecked preponderance of a single state or due to the disorder or uncertainty associated with a multi-polar region instead peace and stability in the region ought to be brought about through the promotion of an outlook of common security, common prosperity and common stability a recognition that security is a common good it cannot be obtained at the expense of the other not if it's meant to be sustainable we need to promote the notion that a win-win common security is not a mistake in the region's stability and the region's prosperity as well a dynamic equilibrium therefore is marked by an absence of a preponderant power certainly but not not through the rigidity rivalry and tensions common to the pursuit of a balance of power instead through the promotion of a sense of common responsibility to maintain the region's peace and stability to reflect such an approach I am of the view and this is where I said this is an Indonesian perspective I don't know where the N will become D to reflect such an approach I am of the view that we should be ready to work towards an Indo-Pacific-wide security of friendship and cooperation a commitment by states in the region to build confidence to address the question of trust deficit to solve disputes by peaceful means to address the issue of unresolved territorial disputes and to promote a concept of security that is all encompassing underscoring that security is a common good a treaty not unlike the treaty of enmity and cooperation in Southeast Asia which as I said before has been so instrumental in the region's evolution from one mark by conflict to one which is on the eve of a community a treaty which provides fresh and strengthen the commitment already expressed by the East Asia Summit participants called Bali principles on the principles for mutually beneficial relations agreed at the East Asia Summit in 2011 three challenges I have mentioned trust deficit unresolved conflicts and the issue of managing change and I have tried to offer some thoughts on illustrate with some examples and some thoughts on how we may wish to respond to put in a nutshell I have a view I have a vision where one day our region the Indo-Pacific region can be brought together not perhaps immediately but through a process of step by step community like spirit an Indo-Pacific community Asia Pacific community cannot be legislated overnight it is not an event it must be built it must be nurtured it must be constantly promoted as we proceed and in this type of endeavor I am so truly delighted and happy to see anchoring all these efforts the ever strengthening partnership between United States and Indonesia comprehensive partnership implies and suggests that the two countries engage in a broad spectrum of cooperation partnership suggests it is a relationship of mutual interest mutual benefit to the two countries obviously but just now as suggested it is perhaps now time to extrapolate and to project that same spirit of partnership in dealing with many issues thank you so much for your attention and thank you for your patience