I agree with the statement that Southeast Asia’s route to independence is characterised by conflict more than cooperation. From the 1500s to the mid-1950s, colonialism was imposed all over Southeast Asia. Some of the major colonisers were the Europeans, Japanese and the United States and all in all, there were seven colonial powers in Southeast Asia. They imposed their political and cultural domination over the Southeast Asian people and territories and after almost 500 years of being ruled by the colonial powers, only then did the countries of Southeast Asia gain their independence. This route to independence was both one of conflict and cooperation. However, in the case of these five countries, the route to independence can be characterised…show more content… Countries like Indonesia, although it is quite clear that the road to independence was a conflicting one, the cooperation of the Dutch, which were the rulers of Indonesia, was the deciding factor that led to the peace and harmony of the two countries. The conflict occurred during World War 2. During World War 2, Indonesia actually helped the Dutch in terms of financial assistance. However, when the Japanese invaded, the Dutch simply gave up on Indonesia. Furthermore, during the war, the Japanese also spiked the Indonesians to fight for independence. As a result, Indonesia did not want to be under Dutch rule again. When the Japanese surrendered in 1945, Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia, proclaimed the end to colonial rule in Indonesia. The Dutch did not recognize this and 4 years of armed conflict followed. Finally in 1949, under much pressure from international governments, the Dutch finally recognised the independence of Indonesia. The conflict in Indonesia’s independence is apparent, however without the cooperation of the two countries and both countries compromising, Indonesia would not have gained its independence. Based on this, some people might argue that Southeast Asia’s route to independence is characterised by cooperation more than