Time for Indonesia to reassert its non-alignment policy<\/p>\n
Irawan Abidin
\nVeteran Diplomat
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
A decade ago, there was a lively debate on whether the Non-
\naligned Movement (NAM) was still relevant following the demise of
\nthe Cold War.<\/p>\n
One side of the argument argued that nations could no longer
\nbe regarded as aligned with one or the other ideological camp. To
\nsay a country was non-aligned was therefore meaningless. So was
\nthe policy of non-alignment.<\/p>\n
Indonesia laid that argument to rest by assuming the
\nleadership of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) in 1992 and giving
\nit a concrete program of undisputable relevance, which it
\nsuccessfully carried out. This was the revival of the North-South
\ndialog as a necessary prelude to the formation of a global
\npartnership for development.<\/p>\n
Corollary to the North-South dialog was a reinvigoration of
\nSouth-South cooperation as a way of solving some of the problems
\nof the developing countries and as a way of strengthening its
\nposition in the projected North-South partnership.<\/p>\n
Indonesia also made sure that the Movement attended to its
\nmany political concerns, including the Middle East issue, the
\nhumanitarian disaster in Somalia, the nuclear issue on the Korean
\npeninsula, and the devastation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.<\/p>\n
It was Indonesia that kept the issue of Bosnia on the front
\nburner of international attention until the United States finally
\nstarted to do something about it.<\/p>\n
The period during which Indonesia served as NAM Chairman was
\ncertainly one of the most successful periods in the Movement's
\nlife.<\/p>\n
This was particularly true in the economic sphere. The North-
\nSouth dialog was finally made concrete when in 1994 a letter from
\nthe NAM chairman, Indonesia, became an important item on the
\nagenda of the Tokyo Summit of the world's seven most
\nindustrialized nations (G-7).<\/p>\n
Because of that dialog, the G-7, now the G-8, gave due
\nattention to the external crisis of the developing countries and
\nthe World Bank took positive initiatives to address it.<\/p>\n
Succeeding NAM Chairmen have sustained the initiatives
\nlaunched under Indonesia's chairmanship even if the Movement
\nsince then has had no new initiative that has caught the world's
\nimagination.<\/p>\n
The tragedy of Sept. 11 would seem to have thrust the Non-
\naligned Movement to the depths of irrelevance. Right after the
\nattacks, the United States formed a global coalition against
\nterrorism into which even the stalwarts of non-alignment like
\nEgypt, India and Indonesia were drawn.<\/p>\n
There is no middle ground: All those countries that cannot
\nbring themselves to align with the U.S., notably Iraq, are
\nautomatically relegated, by American definition, to the terrorist
\ncamp. The U.S. has reasserted that it is not waging war against
\nIslam, but it has branded everyone who is not pro-American, again
\nby definition, a terrorist or supporter of terrorism. Neat.<\/p>\n
In this war against terrorism, admittedly there is no middle
\nground. But must we approve of everything that the U.S. does?<\/p>\n
There surely is independent ground on which a nation can
\nstand. It can join any initiative against terrorism according to
\nits resources, without being subservient to any country. Call
\nthat ground non-alignment.<\/p>\n
It is a ground on which Indonesia has stood since Mohammad
\nHatta spelled out the essence of Indonesian foreign policy as
\nindependent and active. It should never leave that ground. It
\nshould moreover use that ground as a vantage point from which to
\nspeak to the rest of the world.<\/p>\n
The Non-aligned Movement is by no means dead; even it is dead
\nbeyond reviving, it does not mean that non-alignment itself is
\ndead. Non-alignment remains alive so long as Indonesia continues
\nto exist and remains true to itself, to its constitutional
\nmandate and to Hatta's formula of an independent and active
\nforeign policy.<\/p>\n
In recent times, Indonesia has done nothing so far to stray
\nfar from its own norms of non-alignment. Long before Sept. 11 it
\nhas stood in strong opposition to terrorism because terrorism is
\nincompatible with all that Indonesia has stood for.<\/p>\n
After Sept. 11 Indonesia embraced Americans in their grief, in
\ntheir courage and their will to seek justice. It thus supported
\nU.S. efforts to organize the international community in a fight
\nagainst terrorism. At the same time it advocated that this fight
\nbe carried within the framework of the Charter of the United
\nNations, with the UN giving it legitimacy and acceptability.<\/p>\n
Indonesia also made clear that it would support and join any
\nglobal effort to bring terrorists to justice through every
\nlegitimate means that would not bring widespread suffering to
\ninnocent people.<\/p>\n
Since then Afghanistan has been bombarded in a way that has
\nkilled innocent civilians and wreaked havoc on the entire
\npopulation. Since then, too, Indonesia has expressed concern, has
\nprotested and warned against a global Muslim backlash. To the
\nAmericans, Indonesia may look like it has changed its position on
\nthe American-led fight against terrorism. But there is no
\ninconsistency there: Indonesia has always been and remains
\nagainst innocent civilians getting killed.<\/p>\n
Thus, Indonesia has done the right thing, but it could have
\ndone better by calling its position \"non-aligned\" and asserting
\nit as the only possible position that Indonesia could possibly
\ntake.<\/p>\n
Being non-aligned Indonesia is against terrorism and will take
\naction against it -- with or without U.S. approval. Indonesia can
\nsupport every move that the U.S. takes that, in the perception of
\nIndonesia, is wise and legitimate. Indonesia need not approve of
\nany action that the U.S. takes in the fight against terrorism, if
\nshe perceives that action to be unjustified, unwise or against
\nits principles. This, Indonesia can do without wrecking its
\nfriendship with the U.S. and their cooperation in all other
\nmatters.<\/p>\n
And being non-aligned, Indonesia should be fervent and
\nvigorous in advocacy that the fight against terrorism -- even if
\nrightly led by the U.S. -- should be carried out under the banner
\nof the UN, if the fight is to be legitimate and truly
\nmultilateral.<\/p>\n
And for taking such a position, Indonesia has no need to be
\napologetic. The essence of non-alignment is being independent and
\nactive. Indonesia has shown its independence; now it needs to be
\nmore active, to advocate its position on the fight against
\nterrorism as the one that the Non-aligned Movement should adopt.<\/p>\n
And whatever may be the response of the Movement, it should
\nstick to that position, no matter how lonely it will turn out to
\nbe.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/time-for-indonesia-to-reassert-its-non-alignment-policy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}