Democracy and foreign policy: Outlook for 2005

Democracy and foreign policy: Outlook for 2005

Bantarto Bandoro, Jakarta

It is no secret that foreign policy issues have always been external to the mainstream agenda of our national policy, particularly when Indonesia is bogged down by a series of domestic problems while in the midst of becoming a more stable and democratic country.

But many, here and abroad, will not forget the peaceful general elections this year, which can at least serve as a kind of modality for the country to be more prominent in its international standing. It is because of this peaceful event that Indonesia was lauded highly by the international community.

Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda even said that Indonesia's democratic process will be a significant contribution to foreign policy and diplomacy, in that it will stimulate the country to play a more active regional and international role, as reported in the Oct. 22 edition of Kompas.

Meanwhile, the change in the national leadership to Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has raised hopes for a much more stable and respected Indonesia. The program introduced by Susilo, as well as his profile, has helped erase skepticism that the country will move at a snail's pace in its economic and political development.

His 100-day program is quite impressive, particularly because of the neglect -- at least in the public's view -- of the previous regime in providing such a program. Susilo is making a political transition toward a full democracy at an opportune time to rebuild public trust, domestically and internationally.

The eventful year is only the beginning of a very long process toward a full-fledged Indonesian democracy, one that will guarantee not only the country's diplomacy and its international position and credibility, but also the overall fulfillment of domestic needs.

Close observation of our political transition, particularly in relation to international relations as an academic discipline, shows that there is no issue that is as appropriate as the relationship between democracy and foreign policy. As such, the formerly prevailing notion that foreign policy is separate from domestic politics is no longer valid.

The government seems to be taking its best shot at how domestic development would be beneficial to the future of our international diplomacy. If one acknowledges that foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics, then domestic politics should not stonewall the potential achievements of foreign policy and international diplomacy.

If the country does not manage democracy in accordance with a long-term vision, then there is simply no way that it would be an important factor to foreign policy. The message sent by our successful democratic transition is one that underlines our strong adherence to the democratic principles governing international relations.

The current foreign policy initiatives of Indonesia seem to reflect the government's attempt to emphasize the democratic outlook, in a way that has never been done before. The participation of our president in international summits, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summits, his bilateral talks on such occasions and plans to hold an Asia-Africa summit are activities that explain the relevance of our election year to future international relations.

As the new leader of the world's third largest democracy -- which also has the largest Muslim population -- Susilo is bound to prove to the world that Islam and democracy can work in tandem in creating a stable Indonesia. It is important that the empowering moderate Islam as a national asset be a key focus of our foreign policy.

It is within this broad context of democratization that Indonesia is bidding for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

With its relative success in this first stage of democratization, Indonesia should be able to speak with greater authority and confidence when addressing issues like democracy, religious tolerance, terrorism and people trafficking. This is indeed in keeping with our Constitutional mandate that Indonesia play an active and independent role in promoting global peace and prosperity. The sheer size of the Indonesian population dictates that we should be more active in determining the course of global development.

Susilo's understanding of foreign policy and its domestic implications extends beyond the summit, as indicated in his recent request to our diplomats that they help the government improve Indonesia's bad image. He was reported as saying in the Dec. 14 online version of The Jakarta Post that we should restore our dignity, both domestically and overseas.

The president also seems to be aware of the connection between foreign policy and endemic corruption, with its current rank among the world's most corrupt countries.

Indonesia does not want to be seen as ignorant of the possible impact of corruption on regional stability and our regional policy, because corruption also facilitates transnational crimes; it has a corrosive effect on the country's credibility, as well.

Continued corruption and weakness will certainly result in domestic instability through high vulnerability to other crimes, such as drug and people trafficking. However, because its citizens are the ultimate victims of corruption, they will continue to pressure the government to fight corruption more effectively.

An unresponsive government will certainly incite more aggressive behavior from the public that will rattle the government as well as domestic security. In turn, regional stability will be affected significantly: Regional confidence in Indonesia will erode if it fails to perform a pivotal role in regional security. Susilo's request to our diplomats is thus understandable, because they are our standard-bearers on the international scene.

The government must recognize that if it does nothing about corruption, Indonesia will lose what little competitive advantage it has against other countries. Simply put, corruption weakens the country's capacity to enhance its international and regional diplomacy and compete in the international marketplace.

Rule of law and the Susilo administration's anticorruption drive should be made central to our foreign policy, so as to promote confidence in governmental institutions.

Here we see that the success of our democratic process should help alleviate the perception that we are corrupt country. This, however, can be done only if our foreign policy is geared to protecting our democracy and seeking foreign cooperation to lend additional weight to our fight against corruption, as well as to rebuild the economy.

Our foreign policy outlook in 2005 should not only focus on fighting corruption, terrorism or improving our image abroad, however; it must, of course, be more than the sum of these parts, because it must be one that will prevent this ship from sinking. It is thus imperative that foreign policy be given a special place in national discourse. Only through such a process can our diplomats gain better understanding and insight into our priorities in future foreign policy.

The success of our democratic transition and its contribution to foreign policy has set forth a new chapter in the history of Indonesia's international relations.

As John Lewis Gaddis wrote in his paper Diplomacy and Foreign Policy (2001), historians of future centuries will remember a significant policy about the one through which we have lived.

The writer is editor of The Indonesian Quarterly of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and a lecturer of the International Relations Post Graduate Studies Program at the School of Social and Political Sciences, the University of Indonesia. He can be contacted at bandoro@csis.or.id.