Do we need a foreign policy board?

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.