Free and active foreign policy

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