Challenges to Indonesian foreign policy<\/p>\n
By Ali Alatas<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles based on a presentation by
\nthe former minister of foreign affairs at the Aksara Foundation,
\nwhich focuses on the development of an interactive civil society.
\nThe function was held on March 23.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA: As we progress into the new century, Indonesia is
\nbeing confronted with a host of daunting and complex challenges.<\/p>\n
I should like to distinguish between two types of challenges:
\nthose of a global nature, affecting not only Indonesia's foreign
\npolicy and diplomacy, but the international community in general;
\nand those specifically being faced by our country.<\/p>\n
In the first category, I would like to discuss with you two
\ninternational phenomena which the world community will have to
\ngrapple with for many years to come: globalization and the
\nevolving concept called "humanitarian intervention".<\/p>\n
Today, globalization, especially in its economic context, is a
\nreality and no country is immune to its impact.<\/p>\n
We have also come to acknowledge that globalization is by no
\nmeans a sinister force, devised and wielded as an economic weapon
\nby certain advanced countries against the developing world, but
\nrather a natural development driven by the tremendous scientific
\nand technological advances of recent years and, hence,
\ninescapable.<\/p>\n
However, while not being an evil force, it is nevertheless a
\nblind force, incapable of distinguishing between the rich,
\nindustrialized countries and poor developing countries, between
\nthe strong and the weak and between one region and another.<\/p>\n
Thus, globalization has opened up tremendous opportunities for
\neconomic progress and for creating wealth, but its rewards have
\ngone mostly to the stronger economies, those that are best
\nequipped to avail themselves of the opportunities.<\/p>\n
Yet it has also posed a wide range of challenges and risks to
\nthe vulnerable developing economies. Even the more dynamic among
\nthem, like those of East and Southeast Asia, those that have
\nmanaged to integrate themselves into the global economy, through
\njudicious macroeconomic policies and painstaking structural
\nadjustments, have seen their development gains achieved over the
\ndecades crumble in the span of a few weeks.<\/p>\n
This was the devastating experience of the so-called Asian
\nfinancial crisis, which was neither only Asian nor purely
\nfinancial in nature.<\/p>\n
For as is now being conceded, the monetary\/financial hurricane
\nthat lashed out at the economies of Thailand, Malaysia,
\nIndonesia, South Korea and Hong Kong in 1997 had its causes not
\nonly in the acknowledged, internal shortcomings and weaknesses of
\nthe affected economies, but also in the adverse consequences of
\nirresistible globalization in the international monetary and
\nfinancial fields, the rapid, uncontrollable movements of enormous
\namounts of capital in and especially out of open economies and
\nspeculative trading in currencies.<\/p>\n
And the fact that the crisis was particularly harsh precisely
\non those economies that were fully liberalizing their capital
\naccounts, has provided a valuable lesson and an unmistakable
\nwarning to other developing countries.<\/p>\n
The central challenge before the international community
\ntherefore -- to which Indonesian diplomacy must also contribute
\nits active share in overcoming it -- is to tackle the root causes
\nof this crisis and to institute collective measures to prevent
\ntheir reoccurrence.<\/p>\n
We should first find mutually acceptable ways to effectively
\nregulate the international money markets so as to make them more
\ntransparent and predictable.<\/p>\n
It may also be necessary to establish an international
\nmechanism to mitigate the adverse effects of globalization and to
\nensure that the opportunities it offers are equitably available
\nto all economies.<\/p>\n
Such a mechanism should include the capacity for monitoring
\nand surveillance of capital markets and international financial
\noperations. In fact, we already have such a mechanism in the
\nfield of international trade: the World Trade Organization (WTO).<\/p>\n
Thus, there is no reason why we cannot have a similar
\nmechanism in the financial and monetary fields, if it means the
\ndifference between order and chaos in the global economy.<\/p>\n
For these purposes, the convening of an international
\nconference on money and finance and, at the very least, the
\nlaunch of an in-depth study and review of the workings of the
\nworld monetary and financial system from the perspective of the
\nrequirements of development has become an urgent necessity.<\/p>\n
Second, and more generally, the international community needs
\nto seriously address the challenge of how to harness the
\ntremendous force of globalization and enlist it in the fight
\nagainst poverty and for equitable economic progress in the world.<\/p>\n
Above all, we must find the means to eliminate or at least
\nameliorate its adverse aspects so that it will not wreak havoc on
\nvulnerable developing economies and so that the enjoyment of its
\nbenefits can be shared by all.<\/p>\n
And for this, the only adequate answer I can think of is for
\nus to work for the establishment of a global governance that will
\nmatch the potency and implications of globalization.<\/p>\n
A new, global partnership needs to be nurtured, based on
\nequity, common interest, mutual benefit and shared
\nresponsibility. It should be a partnership that by necessity has
\nto be channeled through the central instrumentality of a
\nreformed, democratized and fully empowered United Nations.<\/p>\n
We live in a world replete with new challenges and new
\nopportunities, but also a world of old conflicts, often in new
\nforms and guises.<\/p>\n
The turbulent events in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Sierra Leone
\nand most recently in Kosovo and East Timor have brought up in
\nsharp relief the dilemma posed by what has been called
\n"humanitarian intervention", or namely, on the one hand, the
\nquestion of legitimacy of an action taken by a group of countries
\nor a regional organization without a United Nations mandate and,
\non the other hand, the recognized necessity to effectively put an
\nend to humanitarian catastrophe in certain countries, caused by
\nor as a result of massive and systematic violations of human
\nrights.<\/p>\n
The UN Secretary-General, in presenting his annual report on
\nthe work of the organization to the General Assembly on Sept. 20,
\nspecifically raised the issue, thus sparking an international
\ndebate.<\/p>\n
Indeed, this question of humanitarian intervention may well
\nprove to be one of the major challenges for the U.N. and the
\ninternational community at large in the years to come. By
\ndefinition, it will be a major challenge to Indonesian diplomacy
\nas well.<\/p>\n
While nobody can deny the imperative to stop massive and
\nsystematic violations of human rights causing human tragedies,
\nthe risks intervention poses are equally clear: it could set
\ndangerous precedents for future interventions if done without
\nclear criteria or guidelines as to how, when and by whom to
\nintervene in this manner.<\/p>\n
Therefore, if humanitarian intervention is to be accepted as a
\nnew norm in international relations, it must always be based on
\nthe principles of legitimacy and of universal applicability, or
\nnondiscrimination.<\/p>\n
It must be -- and be seen to be -- justly and consistently
\napplied, irrespective of which country or region are affected.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/challenges-to-indonesian-foreign-policy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}