Do we need a foreign policy board?

By Aleksius Jemadu

JAKARTA (JP): The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently held a seminar about the performance of Indonesia's foreign policy.

One of the participants, Hasnan Habib, put forward the idea that Indonesia should establish a foreign policy formulation board. Habib argued that such a board was necessary to clarify the decision-making mechanism for new challenges facing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Indonesian foreign policy should be made less personal and more inclusive so that it can accommodate the widest possible range of public aspirations (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 1, 1997), Habib said.

Any ideas aimed at enlarging the basis of our foreign policy should be welcomed. The task of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at present, is becoming much more complicated as it is required to deal with problems outside its normal sphere of competence.

However, the establishment of a new board would be of no use without a commitment to make our foreign policy more convergent with other government policies that are sensitive to international criticism.

Due to globalization there is even a need to incorporate the business sector in the formulation of our foreign policy. We cannot deny that the role of networks of interdependent private enterprises tend to dictate the course of events in the global economy.

The emergence of new issues -- such as human rights, democratization, labor, environment, terrorism and the drugs trade -- in post-Cold War international politics demands a new professionalism from government officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Of course, this ministry will not be able to deal with the problems alone. Very often Indonesian diplomats abroad feel embarrassed by their inability to give satisfactory answers to international criticism over Indonesian domestic policies.

It seems that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is under increasing pressure to explain domestic policies which are developed by other government agencies. The problem of labor rights, for example, is the responsibility of the Ministry of Manpower. The Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Environment are responsible for the respective problems of deforestation and the rights of indigenous people.

It is now clear that there is a real need to strive toward a convergence in the content of our foreign policy and the policies of other ministries which tend to provoke international attention. By convergence we mean a progressive set of goals and strategies among different ministries.

The question is how can we create such a convergence?

From the literature on political science we learn that there are at least two approaches to policy-making and implementation which might be relevant to foreign policy.

The first is a classical approach which emphasizes centralization of power and control. In this approach the dominant power tends to dictate the policy-making process. Success is measured on the basis of the degree to which the stated policy objectives of the dominant power are achieved.

Consequently, the implementation of foreign policy strongly represents the idiosyncratic characteristics of the national leader. This approach is known as the "state-centric" model, since it assumes the nation-state is the sole actor in international politics.

The classical approach is most suitable for a stable environment. It is not flexible enough to respond immediately to a foreign policy crisis, for it relies heavily on a centralization of power. Moreover, it is not suitable to a complex environment with multiple challenges. To some extent, this approach represents the present mechanism of policy-making and implementation within the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This might probably be the reason behind Hasnan Habib's suggestion for the establishment of a foreign policy formulation board. Habib might have observed the incongruence between the present mechanism of policy-making and the need to deal effectively with new challenges in the international environment.

The second is the policy network approach. According to Marin and Mayntz (1991), policy networks can be defined as "mechanisms of political resource mobilization in situations where the capacity for decision-making, program formulation and implementation are widely distributed or dispersed among public and private actors". It is also argued that in the context of multi-actor problems, the single-actor problem solving structure is unlikely to be optimal.

It is quite evident from these propositions that the network approach is reliable enough in addressing policy problems which necessitate the participation of different public and private actors. These actors are supposed to contribute to the improvement of the quality of policy-making.

Thus, the essence of the network approach is the existence of a recognized interdependence among government and private actors in a policy-making process. On the basis of recognized interdependence, ministries and private agencies would be willing to exchange information, goals and resources to achieve common objectives. Of high importance in the application of this approach is the improvement of conditions for cooperation among different actors.

We must recognize that some form of coordination in the formulation of Indonesian foreign policy does exist. Some policies, for example, are said to be made at the office of the Coordinating Minister of Political Affairs and Security. Important input for foreign policy-making also comes from the National Council of Security and Defense.

However, reliance on formal coordinating structures has its own shortcomings. They are vulnerable to rigidity and deadlocks, as the different agencies will tend to promote and defend their own organizational interests. Moreover, there is no guarantee that policy implementation will take care of common interests.

An alternative approach to formal interagency coordination is "the nonformal pattern of general understandings and expedient accommodation dictated by practical necessity" (Milton J. Esman, 1989).

This is the pattern that would be recommended for the convergence of goals and strategies between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other agencies. Such bureaucratic pluralism might be the only effective way to deal with new challenges in our foreign policy-making.

Instead of sticking to a classical approach in the policy- making process, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could develop more pluralistic strategies. John Naisbitt (1982) was right when he predicted that networks would be the dominant organizations of the future.

What is our response to this challenge?

The writer is Director of the Parahyangan Center for International Studies, Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.

Window: It is now clear that there is a real need to strive toward a convergence in the content of our foreign policy and the policies of other ministries which tend to provoke international attention.