Free and active foreign policy

With reference to your news item on page two of The Jakarta Post on Oct. 5, 1995, entitled, "free and active foreign policy no longer relevant", I would like to make the following comment:

All academics aside, for a person who keenly observes the happenings of the world today, the term "free and active" means that the country is free to frame and pursue a foreign policy of its own choice while actively participating in international fora.

In other words, terming foreign policy as "free and active" restores the confidence of the people that their country is not falling prey to any trap laid by other countries to usurp their sovereignty. Hence, the term "free and active" has got more to do with the people of the country than with the realities of international relations.

In the realm of international relations, it is diplomacy, the attitude of the government, and military maneuvers which determine the country's position and not the term by which the policy is known.

Relations between any two nations will not vary much if only the name of the foreign policy is changed while everything else remains the same.

Therefore, when one talks about the relevance of "free and active" foreign policy, one is talking about whether the country should determine its own foreign policy and course of action or if someone else should decide for it.

During the New Order administration, Indonesia's initiatives and global reach has increased manifold with its membership in NAM, G-77, G-15, ASEAN, OPEC, APEC and ARF, to name a few. Clearly, all these initiatives were possible because of the so- called "free and active" foreign policy.

RAJESH KUMAR

Jakarta