AN INDEPENDENT, ACTIVE AND CREATIVE FOREIGN POLICY FOR
INDONESIA
By : Dr. Dino Patti Djalal
* This article was published in “Strategic Review : The Indonesian Journal of
Leadership, Policy and World Affairs”, January – March 2012, volume 2, number
1.
INDEPENDENT AND ACTIVE FOREIGN POLICY
The biggest conceptual and operational challenge for Indonesia’s diplomacy is
how to adapt our independent and active foreign policy to the new realities of a
21st century world order.
Since the day it was enunciated by Vice President Muhammad Hatta in 1948,
“independent and active” has proved to be a remarkably resilient foreign policy
concept. Generations of policy makers have accepted it without question. Other
diplomatic concepts have come and go – take your pick : diplomasi perjuangan,
Jakarta-Hanoi-Pyongyang-Beijing axis, NEFOS versus OLDEFOS, development
diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, concentric circles, total diplomacy, ecumenical
diplomacy, and many others. Yet, “independent and active” stands apart and
above as a concept that has withstood the test of time, and one which reflects the
true color of Indonesian nationalism. Given its trans-generational credibility, it
is certain that “independent and active” will continue to be a guiding principle
for Indonesia’s international engagement in the 21st century.
One reason why “independence and active” has survived generations is because
it has always been left somewhat ambivalent. One may find it rather surprising
that after decades, there has not been much attempt to define the precise
elements of “independent and active”. The most common definition is that it
entails “independence of judgment and freedom of action”. There is also the
understanding that there can never be foreign military bases in Indonesia’s
territory. Muhammad Hatta himself proposed the concept in the context of
Indonesia’s efforts to navigate through the dangerous bipolar Cold War rivalry –
“rowing between two reefs”, as he famously called it - and to ensure that
Indonesia would become a subject rather an object in the international system.
Still, the conceptual properties of “independence and active” foreign policy
remain somewhat thin.
My argument is this: for our time, being independent and active alone is not
enough. As the operational terrain becomes more complex, Indonesian foreign
policy actors will need additional guidance to perform their craft. The
international system is no longer rigidly structured and divided as it was during
the Cold War. Nations change, and relationships change. The world moves
much faster, is much less predictable, and much more nuanced. As President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono aptly put it, diplomacy is no longer a question of
“rowing between two reefs”, but a much more daunting challenge of “navigating
in a turbulent ocean”. It remains critical for Indonesia to remain independent
and maintain our activism, but we will need more than that.
CREATIVE FOREIGN POLICY
That additional quality is : the capacity to be “creative”.
As many Indonesian diplomats have found, being “independent” is not so
difficult – indeed, we tend to relish in taking a stand that is different from others.
Being “active” is also easy to do – show up at various international forums and
never hesitate to use the microphone.
The problem is when we act independent for sake of being independent, and
active for the sake of being seen as active. Indeed, I have been occasionally
frustrated by those who would fight nail and tooth to maintain a certain position
just because that has been the only policy line they know of, or those who like to
be disagreeable as a way to be relevant. There are moments when the need to
be “independent” is used as an excuse for inaction. With business as usual
attitude, there is a danger that our foreign policy may become stale and
unresponsive to fast changing events.
In order to achieve results, ”independent and active” would have to be aided by
a robust creative disposition. Indeed, the worst thing one can do to policy is to
deprive it of creativity. A rigid diplomatic posture would lead us to run into a
brick wall at a time when we need to be versatile.
The 3 most powerful questions in creative diplomacy are: Why not ? What if ?
What more ?
I have found that the more diplomats ask these questions, the more they will
generate ideas and solutions, and enhance our role and influence.
An example of a “what if” moment would be when the Indonesian government,
together with the Government of Norway, worked together to convene the
Global Inter-Media Dialogue in the aftermath of the cartoon crisis in 2006. We
knew that the fire needed to be put up, that Indonesia would have credibility to
help, and that this was a tricky issue as dealt with the sacred freedom of speech.
After asking numerous “what ifs”, Jakarta came up with the creative idea to
convene a meeting between western and Islamic journalists to discuss the interrelationship between freedom of speech religious and cultural sensitivity.
Beginning in Bali in 2006, it was a project that worked well, judging from the
response of both the western and muslim journalists. The Global Inter-Media
Dialogue continued for several years.
A “why not” example would be when Indonesia announced the “26 - 41” formula
at a time when climate debate was getting bogged down. There was gridlock in
the negotiations between developed and developing countries, with neither side
willing to move on a specific target of emission reduction. But while others say
“why ?”, Indonesia asked “why not ?” Indonesia’s view was that developed
country should take the lead, but developing countries should also do more.
Hence, Indonesia broke ranks by announcing that we would reduce our
emissions by 26 % in 2010 by our own means, and were willing to increase it to
41 % with international support. This 26-41 formula became a game changer.
After Indonesia made its announcement, other major economies followed.
A “what more” example would be when President Yudhoyono decided to engage
Myanmar’s leader in a correspondence process. Indonesia wanted to be helpful
to Myanmar while also strengthening good relations as fellow ASEAN members.
The normal diplomatic channel was working, and Myanmar was actively taking
part in ASEAN. But something more was needed. Hence, President Yudhoyono
initiated a process of personal correspondence with Myanmar’s strong-man
Senior General Than Shwe. This personal correspondence involved several
letters back and forth, which provided useful channel of communication
between the two leaders to share their thoughts in a no pressure format away
from the media spotlight.
In all these, Indonesia made diplomatic gains by thinking differently, by not
following convention, and by taking some risks.
WHY CREATIVE FOREIGN POLICY IS RELEVANT
A creative foreign policy is entirely relevant because the international
environment has become so crowded, complex and fast-changing that we need
to constantly review our assumptions. When we cling to false assumptions, we
end up making wrong strategic and tactical policy decisions. In a world marked
by a myriad of problems, we must avoid a mindset that insists on policy
retrenchment. We must pursue an open-minded approach that leads to game
changing ideas.
A creative foreign policy is necessary because our constituency has also become
– well - very creative. Civil society is more dynamic than ever. The private
sector is proliferating and full of innovation. The students are constantly
pushing social and political boundaries. Stability is now defined by a persistent
momentum towards progress, not a static state of affairs.
Perhaps one of the most striking feature of the changing diplomatic landscape is
the extent and depth of connectivity. In the middle of the 20th century, bilateral
contacts were maintained by few Government officials, mainly through
diplomatic note, telephone call or a visit. Contacts between citizens were limited
and took place mainly by travel or letter writing – both of which required effort
and somewhat costly. Today, direct contacts between citizens – through
Facebook, Twitter, Linkd in, email, website, Youtube, bloggers forum – by far
exceed contacts between government officials. Creative communities are
finding their own ways and means to engage and collaborate. This is the new
terrain with which our diplomats must keep up.
Another reason for creative foreign policy is Indonesia’s rise as a regional power
with global role. Our national interests are now frequently expressed in global
terms – in the success of Doha round, in the G20, in UN reforms, in advancing
climate negotiations. There is strong recognition that our national interests are
tied to global issues – President Yudhoyono spoke about “the imperative of a
new globalism”. To make a difference in such global arena, Indonesia needs to
have diplomatic agility. We need to be intellectually competitive with fresh
policy ideas in a very active global market place of ideas. It is no longer question
of being merely being “independent” but whether such independence allows us
to provide meaningful contribution to the global agenda.
ELEMENTS OF CREATIVE FOREIGN POLICY
A creative foreign policy requires certain mindset and predisposition.
First, a forward-looking mindset. Those who look too much to the past will be
stuck in nostalgics. As in driving, our job is to look through the front mirror to
focus on the road ahead while keeping rear view mirror to be aware of what’s
behind us. If we do it the other way around, we will run into accidents. The best
example of this forward-looking approach is Indonesia’s relations with Timor
Leste, where the two nations have been able to overcome a difficult painful past
in order to pragmatically build very close relations across the board.
Second, open mindedness. We cannot run creative foreign policy with closed
mind and cynical attitude. We cannot afford to confuse potential friends as
enemies, or to misread the goodwill of others. Our diplomats must avoid being
married to a certain policy line just because it made sense 3 decades ago. Our
foreign policy establishment must be open to – and driven by – new ideas. And
our diplomatic schools must retool our diplomats to fight for national interests
by sharpening their critical thinking and instinct for creative solutions. This is
particularly important because in most diplomatic issues, the ability to come up
with win-win solutions has become a necessary skill.
Fourth, being opportunity driven, rather than fear driven. As President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono pointed out in Davos, in the 21st century we cannot afford
to be overly dogmatic and ideological. There have been instances where
lingering paranoia prevented us from seizing new opportunities and pursue
more ambitious international cooperation. In this, both our diplomats as well as
politicians need to reduce our predilection for wild conspiracy theories – which
by the way, is also commonly found in Latin America and the Middle-East - and
replace them with a higher risk appetite, cold calculations and rational
judgment. This also means that our foreign policy establishment must
encourage our diplomats to be more analysis heavy than information heavy.
A critical part of being creative is knowing your limits. Indonesia is a middle
power with limited diplomatic, military and economic resources. We cannot be
involved in everything, but we can be relevant on certain things. In view of our
finite resources, knowing how to prioritize and allocate resources to those
priorities are essential to the efficacy of a creative foreign policy.
Creative foreign policy has been given a big boost by the notion of ‘million
friends and zero enemy’, enunciated by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in
2005. This viewpoint is significant because Indonesian nationalism has always
been connected to the presence of “enemy”. In the last 6 decades or so, various
nations were designated as our nation’s enemies for one reason or another :
Japan, The Netherlands, the United States, Great Britain, Malaysia, Singapore,
Portugal, China.
Thus, since the time of our independence, every generation had a foreign
country which they called “enemy”.
The “zero enemy” idea is unique because it indicates that presently no foreign
state considers Indonesia as an enemy; and conversely, no state is considered by
Indonesia as our enemy. Don’t get me wrong : we do have problems with our
neighbors, and we do have disputes – many of them. But the quality of our
engagement with these foreign governments cannot be described as hostile.
Indeed, good neighbors quarrel and bicker all the time – the US and Mexico,
Britain and France, Indonesia and Malaysia - but that does not turn them into
enemies. If anything, problems only compel them into closer neighbors.
The “million friends” idea is also unique. President Yudhoyono has stated that
“our international engagement makes us better, safer, stronger”, implying that
our internationalism and our nationalism are two sides of the same coin.
The “million friends” entail many things : turning former foes into new friend;
turning friend into partner; turning neighbors into family.
“Zero enemy” does not automatically turn into a condition of “million friends”.
This is why a key task for Indonesia’s diplomacy is take advantage of the
condition of “zero enemy” to create an extensive network of friends and
partners. The space is wide open for us to do this, especially with our enhanced
international profile and the rapid power shifts that are taking place in the
international system. Thus, the most important asset for Indonesian diplomats
to develop is their lobbying and networking skills. When they do, they will
happily find that every connection made equals at least one or more
opportunity.
ALL DIRECTION FOREIGN POLICY
Creative foreign policy is also necessary in view of our pursuit of what President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono calls “all direction foreign policy”.
“All direction foreign policy” is a post-Cold War 21st century organic extension of
independent and active foreign policy. It means that to pursue our national
interests and meet our global responsibilities, Indonesia must be able to
effectively connect with all sides : east and west, north and south.
All direction foreign policy signals that Indonesian diplomacy is again becoming
assertive, global outward-looking. In the early years of our democratic
transition, there was a moment when Indonesia became inward-looking
(something that is likely to happen among present Arab spring countries as
well). The political elites were tied up with pressing domestic issues and
addressing instability. But those days are behind us for now. With democratic
stability, especially since 2004, Indonesia regained speed in terms of regional
and international activism – convening Asian-African Conference in 2005,
hosting major UN Climate Conference in 2007, taking part in World Economic
Forum in Davos, becoming chairman of ASEAN in 2011, and preparing for APEC
chairman in 2013. Indonesia also developed an extensive network of strategic
and comprehensive partnerships, : Australia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, South
Africa, the United States, Russia, Brazil, South Korea, Turkey, and several others.
It is important to remember that in pursuing “all direction foreign policy”,
becoming everybody’s friend does not mean pleasing and agreeing with
everybody. It would be a terrible tragedy if Indonesia were to become shy and
lose our edge as a principled diplomatic power. Foreign policy is first and
foremost about promoting national interests, and not necessarily a popularity
contest. The more friends we have, the more we need to take a clear stand on
bilateral, regional and international issues, no matter how difficult and how
many feathers we may ruffle. Our policy makers must always show leadership.
Our diplomatic credibility, and our effectiveness, lies in our ability to
consistently provide honest advise and constructive solutions to our friends. We
must not be intimidated by size, pressures and threats, and we must live up to
our hard-won legacy of independence of judgment and freedom of action. I
would argue that this ability to utilize our expanding connections to advance our
diplomatic impact is key to the success of million friends diplomacy.
To harness the powers of creative foreign policy, Indonesian diplomats must
hone what I would call partnership skills. This is because our diplomatic
partnerships have significantly increasing and will continue to grow. But
partnership is often easier to enter into than to develop. Partnership is not a
momentary fad; it is a long-term commitment. We must treat our partners with
the attention and resources they deserve, and this takes a special organizational
and diplomatic skill. Our international partnerships must also be resilient to
political changes at home, and when a partnership is under duress, our
diplomats must have courage to fix it and defend the interests of such
partnership rather than taking easy cover. This is what we expect from our
partners, and this is what we need to do as well. Partnership skill also means
that our diplomats must be proactive and assertive to ensure that there are
balanced initiatives that come from each sides – not a partnership where we
merely respond to the initiatives of our partners.
Finally, I believe that there is no better moment for independent and active
foreign policy to thrive than in our time. Our assets, our opportunities, our
profile and our evolving diplomatic terrain combine all work in our favor.
Indonesia is now on an upward trajectory – we are poised to become among the
world’s top ten largest economies in the coming decades. Diplomacy is a key
part of keeping Indonesia on that positive trajectory. In the 20th century, we
benefitted a great deal from independent and active foreign policy. But we will
need more than that in the coming years. It is time we pursue independent,
active and creative foreign policy for the 21st century.
(ends)
The writer is Indonesia’s Ambassador to the United States and former Presidential
spokesperson and special staff for international affairs.