ASEAN needs no big brothers

ASEAN needs no big brothers

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): President Megawati Soekarnoputri's choice to
visit the ASEAN capitals was right as a reaffirmation of her
pledge to make ASEAN once again the cornerstone of Indonesia's
foreign policy. It was a necessary first step to rectify her
predecessor's virtual neglect and even, in some cases, snub of
Indonesia's neighbors.

She was also right in saying before the Indonesian community
in Bangkok during her visit there that Indonesia must put its own
house in order before it can resume its role in ASEAN.
Indonesia's role in the region as well as in the wider
international arena needs to be sustained by its domestic
stability and credibility.

It seems doubtful, however, if there has been "a consensus
within ASEAN that Indonesia takes most of the initiatives and
leadership within the organization simply because it is the
largest member". She said, "Indonesia must live up to its title
as the 'big brother' of the region." And she wished people would
stop putting quotation marks around the words "big brother"
whenever referring to the role that Indonesia should play in
ASEAN.

Well, I, for one, will continue to put quotation marks around
those words, unless I feel assured that the title "big brother"
is willingly conferred upon Indonesia by the rest of ASEAN rather
than self-proclaimed by Indonesian leaders. And only then will I
stop using the term in a positive sense.

Indeed, I may be out of date and out of touch with current
foreign affairs, but my understanding is that the term "big
brother" -- in reference to "big-brother attitude" or "big-
brother policy" in international affairs -- normally indicates a
feeling of resentment on the part of target countries against the
bullying tactics of bigger and more powerful neighbors.

Indeed, Indonesians referred to the Japanese as a "big
brother", a term imposed as a propaganda tool by the Japanese
during the three and a half years of occupation. Many Indonesians
might have done it out of fear or ignorance, or both, and a few
leaders were perhaps innocently convinced of the Japanese
goodwill and intention.

Would, however, Indonesians today accept or tolerate a
bullying behavior toward them by China, Japan, India or the USA
and still regard any of them as a "big brother"? I very much
doubt it.

Terms and concepts die hard in international politics. The
most that our neighbors in ASEAN could tolerate, if not
necessarily publicly and explicitly expressed, is probably
Indonesia's status within ASEAN as primus inter pares (first
among equals). Indonesia should strive for no higher status than
that. The power of a state is not simply measured by the number
of its population, the size of its territory, and the wealth of
its natural resources and its cultural richness, but also its
human resources, its advancement in technology, its economic
power, its military strength, its democracy and stability, and
thus its political influence.

However, Indonesia does occupy a special place in Southeast
Asia. That is to say, in the past, it was perceived by its
neighbors as a potential threat to their security, and thus to
the security of the region in military or expansionist terms.
Indonesia's success in recovering West Irian in the 1960s, its
policy of confrontation against Malaysia, and its annexation of
East Timor were seen as historical evidence of Indonesia's
expansionist ambition.

Even today, Indonesia remains a potential threat to the
security of its neighbors. Now, however, that threat is not to be
understood in military or expansionist terms, but rather in
social, political and economic terms because of the
multidimensional crisis that has beset the country for the past
few years.

The flow of "boat people" from Indonesia seeking a better life
in the neighboring countries is not to be underestimated. This
would be a "spillover" of Indonesia's domestic troubles into its
neighbors.

ASEAN would tend to render Indonesia "less menacing".
Indonesia would, as it were, tend to be "domesticated" rather
than outside the association.

I recall cases when there were complaints by Singaporeans,
Filipinos (in reference to their dispute with Malaysia over
Sabah, for instance), and Malaysians about "big brother" behavior
on the part of Indonesians (particularly diplomats and other
high-ranking officials) for some signs of what they perceived,
rightly or wrongly, as interference in their domestic affairs.
One Indonesian diplomat was even declared persona non grata by
the Philippine government.

In her speech, the President also called on her compatriots
everywhere to build up their self-confidence, For Indonesia to be
able to take a leadership position, she said, "the recipe is to
build a strong national identity, self-respect and self-
confidence". That's fine. But with what, Ma'am, just slogans?

Indonesians abroad, she said, "must never shy away from
publicly identifying their nationality no matter how appalling
conditions in their home country are and no matter what other
people think of Indonesia. I have met many people who said they
were ashamed to be Indonesians." Who has made them ashamed? Is it
their fault?

People can only be proud, at least not ashamed, of their
national identity only if their state delivers the goods it has
promised. After all, most Indonesians are citizens of this
republic not out of choice. The state must give them good reasons
to be proud of their membership. Or else, they have the right
(one of the human rights) to leave their country -- provided, of
course, there is some country that would accept them!

Former president Abdurrahman Wahid acted as his own foreign
minister and bungled. President Megawati need not do that.
Though most probably not well-versed in foreign affairs, she now
has an experienced diplomat as her foreign minister. Foreign
affairs do not seem to be where she needs to prove herself, if
she really feels the need to prove herself, that is. For the
outcome may be precisely the opposite.

Conducting foreign policy the way president Sukarno did in his
era almost four decades ago is no longer relevant to the rapidly
changing world of today. In fact, it is questionable if it was
ever effective at all in the last few years of his presidency
from the point of view of Indonesia's national interest.

We must move forward with the fast progress of the world, not
back to the past. Or else we may end up the laughing stock in the
international community for being so outrageously out of tune and
wide of the mark.

The writer is a political analyst in Jakarta.