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domestic politics is no longer valid.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.