Greater self-confidence and the need for

Greater self-confidence and the need for
cogent foreign policy approach: Outlook for 2006

Bantarto Bandoro
Jakarta

A free and active (proactive) foreign policy has characterized
Indonesia since its independence. This basic policy has shown a
remarkable degree of resilience and adaptability. It will remain
so in the future.

When Susilo came into power one year ago, he not only
reiterated the importance of that basic policy for our foreign
relations, but also inherited internal as well as external
conditions in which our foreign policy needs to be adjusted.

The foreign policy challenges that Indonesia, under Susilo,
face are quite immense, particularly as we try to improve our
image abroad and experience enormous transformations in the
global system .

Susilo, who appeared to take a direct role in foreign policy
execution, seems to have been able to grasp the essence of our
foreign relations, particularly when the country was facing
external and internal pressures to move faster in its
democratization process, economic recovery and fight against
terrorism.

We are confronted with three options: to be part of, follow or
lead the change. We surely cannot only be a follower, nor stand
idly by, in the changed world. The country should be able to lead
on certain issues in international relations.

Because we want to be part of the changes, in a way that
benefits the country, and lead on certain issues, at least
regionally, Susilo convinced the public of the importance of
international links for the solution of our domestic problems and
the promotion of the country's national interests.

It was an Indonesian idea that participation in the East Asian
Summit should be enlarged to include India, Australia and New
Zealand. A series of strategic regional policies has also been
tabled by Indonesia, some of which have been realized through
concrete action plans, such as the ASEAN Security Community.

The success of our democratic process has, at least for now,
been quite instrumental in moving toward a more satisfactory
foreign policy agenda, namely greater confidence in being a
prominent, if not key player, at a regional and global level.
This confidence will shape the content and direction of our
foreign policy.

On a bilateral level, we saw the government give first, if not
highest priority, to developing friendly and mutually beneficial
relations with all our neighbors.

At the same time, Indonesia is also stepping up significantly
its engagement with major powers. Indonesia's relationship with
the U.S., for example, is changing in response to the dynamics
operating in the two countries, as well as regionally and
globally, particularly the fight against global terrorism.

In just one year, our relationship with the U.S. has developed
significantly at many levels.

The lifting of the arms embargo by the U.S. government was
seen as a clear path toward the normalization of bilateral
relations between the two countries, particularly in the realm of
the military.

One should and will not see our relation with the U.S. in the
context of any other country or regional equation or even
alliance system, nor is the relationship going to be at the
expense of any other relationship valued by this country. Meaning
that the maintenance of Indonesia's relations with Japan, China,
Russia and other major countries in Europe is as important as our
relations with the U.S.

So, how then should we frame a progressive foreign policy for
2006 and where should we start? Given the perceived gains --
politically as well as economically and strategically -- the
country received from the changed environment, it is not wrong
to assume that the profile mentioned above has, to a certain
degree, contributed to the success of our foreign policy. Such
success may have began with our top leaders' comprehensive
understanding of the particular challenges of the day.

The year 2006, and perhaps beyond, will see even more severe
challenges faced by our foreign policy as our immediate region in
particular moves into an integrated region, exemplified by the
East Asian Community and ASEAN Community.

Free trade areas formed by ASEAN-China, ASEAN-Japan and ASEAN-
India will soon be in place. Moreover, terrorism is a real
threat and a present danger that we must confront and defeat.
Thus, our foreign policy will succeed or fail according to how
well the country copes with this era's diverse security and
economic challenges.

Given the major policy initiatives Indonesia has taken
recently toward its immediate region, Asia, it is not wrong to
suggest that the sub-region, Southeast and Northeast Asia in
particular, has been and will continue to be the central focus
of, and arena for, our international diplomacy. The consequences
for Indonesia in the years ahead are to design some sort of Asian
strategy, one that offers programs and strategic direction as to
how our foreign policy should deal with every day as well as
unexpected political events that might occur in the region of
Asia.

Next year we will also see more intensive diplomatic
interaction and transactions among the countries in the Asian
region due to their commitment to creating a kind of regional
pool for peace and prosperity. As an influential member of ASEAN,
Indonesia is committed to playing a part in such a process. But
Indonesian foreign policy should not be "too regionalistic" in a
way that ignores other major regional security-related issues
that affect our foreign policy, such as the environment,
terrorism, drug trafficking and people smuggling, to mention a
few.

Thus, what we need perhaps is a considered and reasoned
approach -- an approach that might evolve into a kind of a
doctrine -- to help our diplomats navigate the country's foreign
policy in a much more challenging and globalized world. The
question is what do we need a doctrine for?

A doctrine not only gives overall direction to our foreign
policy, but it also helps establish basic foreign policy
priorities, particularly when we are in need of long-term
certainty and stability in our economic development and in
maintaining our international role. Susilo is quite visionary in
this matter, suggesting that the country should play an active
and catalytic role if Indonesia is to maintain its independence
and diplomatic gains.

A doctrine, if it is ever to be of any value, could help shape
and direct the allocation of resources. It would also signal to
our neighboring countries, to our legislative members and public
at home, where our policies are heading, what they will entail,
and what can be expected in the future regarding Indonesia's
international role. A doctrine thus offers strategic clarity.

With its new profile and intention to be in the lead of
certain international issues, it is especially important for
Indonesia to have a cogent foreign policy approach. Indonesia
also needs constant adjustment to reflect the realities of today
and tomorrow's challenges.

A clear-sighted view of the country's national interests is
therefore needed if Indonesia is to successfully navigate new
regional security and economic issues, while also addressing its
relations with other parts of the globe. The regional and global
complexities of the 21st century demand strategic, over-the-
horizon Indonesian thinking. This will, of course, require
creative and bold diplomacy.

The writer is the director of scientific infrastructure and
publications, and the chief editor of The Indonesian Quarterly,
at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.
He is also a lecturer in the International Relations Graduate
Program at the School of Social and Political Sciences, the
University of Indonesia. He can be reached at bandoro@csis.or.id.