Do we need a foreign policy board?<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The Center for Strategic and International
\nStudies (CSIS) recently held a seminar about the performance of
\nIndonesia's foreign policy.<\/p>\n
One of the participants, Hasnan Habib, put forward the idea
\nthat Indonesia should establish a foreign policy formulation
\nboard. Habib argued that such a board was necessary to clarify
\nthe decision-making mechanism for new challenges facing the
\nMinistry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n
Indonesian foreign policy should be made less personal and
\nmore inclusive so that it can accommodate the widest possible
\nrange of public aspirations (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 1, 1997),
\nHabib said.<\/p>\n
Any ideas aimed at enlarging the basis of our foreign policy
\nshould be welcomed. The task of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
\nat present, is becoming much more complicated as it is required
\nto deal with problems outside its normal sphere of competence.<\/p>\n
However, the establishment of a new board would be of no use
\nwithout a commitment to make our foreign policy more convergent
\nwith other government policies that are sensitive to
\ninternational criticism.<\/p>\n
Due to globalization there is even a need to incorporate the
\nbusiness sector in the formulation of our foreign policy. We
\ncannot deny that the role of networks of interdependent private
\nenterprises tend to dictate the course of events in the global
\neconomy.<\/p>\n
The emergence of new issues -- such as human rights,
\ndemocratization, labor, environment, terrorism and the drugs
\ntrade -- in post-Cold War international politics demands a new
\nprofessionalism from government officials at the Ministry of
\nForeign Affairs.<\/p>\n
Of course, this ministry will not be able to deal with the
\nproblems alone. Very often Indonesian diplomats abroad feel
\nembarrassed by their inability to give satisfactory answers to
\ninternational criticism over Indonesian domestic policies.<\/p>\n
It seems that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is under
\nincreasing pressure to explain domestic policies which are
\ndeveloped by other government agencies. The problem of labor
\nrights, for example, is the responsibility of the Ministry of
\nManpower. The Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of
\nEnvironment are responsible for the respective problems of
\ndeforestation and the rights of indigenous people.<\/p>\n
It is now clear that there is a real need to strive toward a
\nconvergence in the content of our foreign policy and the policies
\nof other ministries which tend to provoke international
\nattention. By convergence we mean a progressive set of goals and
\nstrategies among different ministries.<\/p>\n
The question is how can we create such a convergence?<\/p>\n
From the literature on political science we learn that there
\nare at least two approaches to policy-making and implementation
\nwhich might be relevant to foreign policy.<\/p>\n
The first is a classical approach which emphasizes
\ncentralization of power and control. In this approach the
\ndominant power tends to dictate the policy-making process.
\nSuccess is measured on the basis of the degree to which the
\nstated policy objectives of the dominant power are achieved.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the implementation of foreign policy strongly
\nrepresents the idiosyncratic characteristics of the national
\nleader. This approach is known as the \"state-centric\" model,
\nsince it assumes the nation-state is the sole actor in
\ninternational politics.<\/p>\n
The classical approach is most suitable for a stable
\nenvironment. It is not flexible enough to respond immediately to
\na foreign policy crisis, for it relies heavily on a
\ncentralization of power. Moreover, it is not suitable to a
\ncomplex environment with multiple challenges. To some extent,
\nthis approach represents the present mechanism of policy-making
\nand implementation within the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign
\nAffairs.<\/p>\n
This might probably be the reason behind Hasnan Habib's
\nsuggestion for the establishment of a foreign policy formulation
\nboard. Habib might have observed the incongruence between the
\npresent mechanism of policy-making and the need to deal
\neffectively with new challenges in the international environment.<\/p>\n
The second is the policy network approach. According to Marin
\nand Mayntz (1991), policy networks can be defined as \"mechanisms
\nof political resource mobilization in situations where the
\ncapacity for decision-making, program formulation and
\nimplementation are widely distributed or dispersed among public
\nand private actors\". It is also argued that in the context of
\nmulti-actor problems, the single-actor problem solving structure
\nis unlikely to be optimal.<\/p>\n
It is quite evident from these propositions that the network
\napproach is reliable enough in addressing policy problems which
\nnecessitate the participation of different public and private
\nactors. These actors are supposed to contribute to the
\nimprovement of the quality of policy-making.<\/p>\n
Thus, the essence of the network approach is the existence of
\na recognized interdependence among government and private actors
\nin a policy-making process. On the basis of recognized
\ninterdependence, ministries and private agencies would be willing
\nto exchange information, goals and resources to achieve common
\nobjectives. Of high importance in the application of this
\napproach is the improvement of conditions for cooperation among
\ndifferent actors.<\/p>\n
We must recognize that some form of coordination in the
\nformulation of Indonesian foreign policy does exist. Some
\npolicies, for example, are said to be made at the office of the
\nCoordinating Minister of Political Affairs and Security.
\nImportant input for foreign policy-making also comes from the
\nNational Council of Security and Defense.<\/p>\n
However, reliance on formal coordinating structures has its
\nown shortcomings. They are vulnerable to rigidity and deadlocks,
\nas the different agencies will tend to promote and defend their
\nown organizational interests. Moreover, there is no guarantee
\nthat policy implementation will take care of common interests.<\/p>\n
An alternative approach to formal interagency coordination is
\n\"the nonformal pattern of general understandings and expedient
\naccommodation dictated by practical necessity\" (Milton J. Esman,
\n1989).<\/p>\n
This is the pattern that would be recommended for the
\nconvergence of goals and strategies between the Ministry of
\nForeign Affairs and other agencies. Such bureaucratic pluralism
\nmight be the only effective way to deal with new challenges in
\nour foreign policy-making.<\/p>\n
Instead of sticking to a classical approach in the policy-
\nmaking process, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could develop
\nmore pluralistic strategies. John Naisbitt (1982) was right when
\nhe predicted that networks would be the dominant
\norganizations of the future.<\/p>\n
What is our response to this challenge?<\/p>\n
The writer is Director of the Parahyangan Center for
\nInternational Studies, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.<\/p>\n
Window: It is now clear that there is a real need to strive toward
\na convergence in the content of our foreign policy and the policies
\nof other ministries which tend to provoke international attention.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/do-we-need-a-foreign-policy-board-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}