Indonesia in 2006: The foreign policy challenge.

Indonesia in 2006: The foreign policy challenge.

Michael Vatikiotis
Singapore

The past year has seen Indonesia weather many storms. There
cannot be many countries in the world forced to deal with man-
made and natural disasters simultaneously. For Indonesia's newly
elected government there was the tsunami and a succession of
terrorist acts to recover from. The rise in global oil prices
threatened domestic stability, and while other governments might
have used all this to put off hard political decisions, Indonesia
went ahead with local elections, a crackdown on corruption and
finally raised domestic fuel prices. The sky did not fall.

Domestic distractions, although unavoidable, have in my view
held Indonesia back from an important global responsibility as a
democracy and it would be well and good if the coming year could
see Indonesia start to play a cautiously and carefully calibrated
role on the wider international stage.

Self-obsessed Indonesians often miss this point. The success
of the 2004 elections and the transition to a directly elected
president has transformed what the world perceived for the past
eight years as a basket case of a country into the world's third
largest democracy. And yet time and again over the past year when
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was presented with a chance to
actively harness this transformation to regional or global
issues, domestic problems got in the way.

Many Indonesians I speak to are skeptical about just how much
impact Indonesia can have. I normally respond by saying that
successful foreign policy is about being bold and imaginative.
The 1955 Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung was a bold and
imaginative move. In the case of contemporary Indonesia, being
the largest Muslim population in the world with a democracy that
genuinely provides for untrammeled freedom of expression is
already reason enough for the world to pay some attention. More
specifically building on the successful management of a complex
direct election, implementation of local autonomy and securing of
a peace agreement in Aceh, Indonesia is well positioned to play a
role in promoting political reform in a post conflict
environment.

Let's take the Middle East as an example. The Israeli-
Palestinian conflict appears to be moving into a new phase.
Israel's disengagement from Gaza and legislative elections in the
occupied territories at the end of January are generating
domestic political and security challenges for the Palestinian
National Authority based in Ramallah. There is no shortage of aid
and advice coming from Europe and the United States, but
Palestinians tell me that they want more relevant , practical
advice about how to build a democracy in a fractured and
conflict-ridden society.

There is, for example, the whole question of the relationship
between religion and the state to be addressed. There is communal
stress in areas on the West Bank, in Gaza and east Jerusalem
where generations of refugees and people who have grown up with a
rock or a gun in their hands.

What can Europe and the United States teach these people about
the reality of social and political reform? The superpowers might
be best positioned to exert leverage over Israel and the
Palestinians on larger security issues, but countries like
Indonesia are ideally suited to guiding the Palestinians on the
road to a peaceful democratic transformation.

Closer to home Indonesia should take a more proactive stand on
political reform in Myanmar. Former foreign minister Ali Alatas
visited Yangon recently as a special envoy of the United Nations
Secretary General. A good follow up would be to gently persuade
the military junta that a democratic transition like the one
Indonesia has experienced, unlike the model Washington appears to
have deployed in Iraq, can be inclusive and avoid wholesale and
reckless retribution.

Then there's the whole issue of Indonesia's standing in the
Islamic world. In Jakarta I hear concerns about the strengthening
influence of conservative Islamic teaching. The government would
do well to act more decisively and less defensively when it comes
to countering intolerance. To my mind a low point this year was
the President's slow response to those who would have churches
closed and stricter enforcement of Islamic law. This damaged
Indonesia's image as a moderate Muslim nation.

Instead, Indonesia should be marketing its unique brand of
secular and pluralistic Muslim identity. The wider Muslim world,
particularly the Middle East, needs to be shown how Islam can
thrive in conditions of democracy and economic prosperity.
Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda's interfaith dialogue makes a
good start.

But going further, I would urge Indonesia's moderate Muslim
NGOs and universities to reach out and find a role to play
overseas, without feeling inferior to the traditional Islamic
centers of learning in the Middle East, where atrophy and
bitterness prevails. It is time for the Islamic new world to
assert itself.

Of course, there are those who will say that Indonesia is held
back by the poor quality of its bureaucracy and the inexperience
of its politicians. Government leaders are wary of spending too
much time overseas lest they be criticized for ignoring problems
at home.

Parliamentarians are treated as pariahs when in fact they
should be groomed and held up as the vanguard of the region's
truly democratic lawmakers Finessing the art of delegation and
the judicious appointment of experts and emissaries would do much
to overcome this problem.

Indonesia has no shortage of intellectual talent. A country as
large as Indonesia has plentiful human resources. Now that the
government feels more secure politically, it is time to unleash
this potential on the region and the world.

The writer is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.