Ease foreign diplomacy<\/p>\n
Zatni Arbi, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jakarta<\/p>\n
Who is to blame if Indonesia has lost its influence in ASEAN?
\nThe big irony, if we think about it, is that Indonesia's former
\npresident Soeharto was -- and is still -- considered one of the
\nfounding fathers of this regional association. When he was
\ntoppled in May 1998, Indonesia's role in the Association of
\nSoutheast Asian Nations began its rapid downturn. Today,
\nIndonesia has less and less clout in this regional organization,
\nwhich it built together with the four founding nations more than
\n35 years ago.<\/p>\n
And who is to blame if we have increasing diplomatic
\nentanglements even with our closest neighbors? Issues such as
\npeople-smuggling and illegal immigrants, and now terrorism, have
\nincreasingly strained our relationship with them. Fortunately,
\nthe ASEAN Spirit, which has been one of the main strengths of
\nASEAN, can still contain the problems we have with fellow ASEAN
\nmembers.<\/p>\n
As a nation, one of the biggest mistakes that we have made
\ntime and again lately has been to be extremely reactive when a
\nmore reserved attitude would be a better option. On the other
\nhand, when quick and definite responses are badly required, we
\nopt for inaction.<\/p>\n
Looking back, what did we do when the region was covered with
\nthe haze from the fires that burned our forests blanketed the
\nregion, for example? Year after year, the haze created severe
\nhealth hazard not only to our people but also to the people in
\nthe neighboring countries. It created so much economic burden,
\nbecause airplanes were unable to land and take-off and people
\nwere not able to carry out their daily business. It gave us so
\nmuch embarrassment at the international level, yet we did hardly
\nanything.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, when Indonesia was said to be a haven for
\ncertain terrorist cells, we reacted with a loud uproar. Our
\ndemonstrators went as far as burning other countries' flags and
\nthe effigies of their government heads. We justified this action,
\nwhich is considered improper by international standard, by
\nstating that it was an expression of our nationalism. We were a
\nsovereign nation, we said.<\/p>\n
When the Australian authority raided the residence of
\nIndonesians living on their soil, we immediately exploded with
\nrage. We felt very offended, and we refused to walk a mile in
\ntheir shoes. And, to show our Indonesian solidarity, even our
\nhackers launched concerted attacks to various institutions and
\norganizations in Australia by defacing and hacking their
\nhomepages.<\/p>\n
One could not help wondering, unfortunately, where was our
\nnationalism when Indonesia was listed as one of the most corrupt
\ncountries in Asia by the Pacific Economic Risk Consultancy? Why
\ndid we fail to do anything when our human resource was ranked one
\nof the lowest in the world? When our hackers, for example, placed
\nindecent pictures and our Sang Saka flag on the foreign homepages
\nthat they were attacking, what good did it do in demonstrating
\nour nationalism?<\/p>\n
Nationalism will not help much, when so many conflicting
\nvoices are heard from our government officials, legislators,
\nparty leaders, public opinion makers and even scholars. It is not
\na secret that behind all these conflicting statements is the
\nfrantic effort to gain public popularity as these power-oriented
\nfigures jockey for positions in the 2004 election.<\/p>\n
The problem of conflicting statements and the \"too much talk\"
\nby our officials has been extensively discussed and criticized by
\npolitical observers, scholars and practitioners alike. The end
\nresult to our foreign diplomacy is the same. We are no longer a
\ncredible state in the eye of the international community.<\/p>\n
It is very easy to blame our Ministry of Foreign Affairs for
\nthe failure of our foreign diplomacy and for the continued
\ndeterioration of our image as a nation and a state. However, what
\ncould our diplomats do, if the rest of the country does not share
\na single vision and does not collaborate to support their
\nmission? How can this department serve as an effective public
\nrelations body for Indonesia, if the rest of the government and
\nthe people continue to launch their own campaigns that are
\ncounterproductive to our foreign diplomacy?<\/p>\n
It is a very difficult task, indeed. One thing that we can do,
\nif we want to start to rebuild the relevance of Indonesia at the
\ninternational level, is to be more careful and thoughtful in
\nresponding to whatever external development that affects us as a
\nstate.<\/p>\n
Pushing the government to break diplomatic ties with other
\ncountries, for example, is just an impulsive reaction that will
\nnot only lead to worse damages but, more importantly, will not
\nreflect the wisdom of a great nation that we would like to
\nportray.<\/p>\n
For many years, the job of our foreign ministers has not
\nactually been something that too many of us really envy. Today,
\nit is time to help ease the perils of our foreign diplomacy by
\nexercising self-control and knowing better which international
\ndevelopments we really have to react to -- and in what way.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ease-foreign-diplomacy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}