Indonesia still pursuing its role in Non-Aligned Movement
Indonesia still pursuing its role in Non-Aligned Movement
By Nana S. Sutresna
JAKARTA (JP): One question that is often asked these days by
observers and analysts of Indonesian policy is whether the
country should continue its well-known active role in the Non-
Aligned Movement (NAM).
After all, the Cold War is a thing of the past. During the
Cold War the NAM served as the moral alternative to alignment
with either of the two ideological blocs that were then engaged
in a rivalry that had potentially devastating consequences. As if
to suggest that such a function was the rationale of NAM's
existence, another question that is often asked is: With the
alignments gone, is non-alignment still meaningful?
Moreover, in a global situation where the emerging economies
like Indonesia have lost much of their dynamism, the NAM, whose
members are all developing countries, must have also lost much of
whatever leverage it had in dealing with the developed world. Is
it still be prudent and practical for Indonesia to be so closely
identified with the NAM?
My personal view is that while the end of the Cold War and the
surge of globalization have changed the political and economic
landscape of the world, they have not in any way changed the
fundamentals of international relations.
Nor can they change the historical fact that Indonesia was
born non-aligned. This means that virtually right after the
Indonesian Republic was proclaimed in 1945, it acquired a foreign
policy that then Prime Minister Mohammad Hatta would subsequently
describe as "independent and active." Independent because it is
neither shaped nor influenced by the designs of any world power
but only by the national interest and the ideals and principles
to which our founding fathers committed the Indonesian Republic.
Active because it seeks to launch or participate in common
initiatives towards the shaping of a more peaceful, more just and
more prosperous world order. The mandate to do so comes directly
from the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution.
Therefore, if Indonesia is to be true to itself, if it is to
be faithful to the ideals and vision on which it was founded, it
should remain as non-aligned as it was at the moment of its
birth. And as long as the NAM sticks to the principles of non-
alignment as enunciated some 44 years ago at the Asia-Africa
Conference in Bandung, Indonesia should continue to be a mainstay
of the movement.
The Ten Principles or Dasa Sila Bandung which constituted a
code of ethics among nations have never been more relevant than
in today's global situation where only one superpower tends to
dominate the political landscape while the rest of the world
strives for a new equilibrium. Primarily due to a mistaken notion
that one bloc has scored a victory over the other, the growth of
a monolithic situation seems to be gaining momentum in the post-
Cold War era. This tendency might eventually constitute a threat
to the common endeavor to create a juster world, adding
complexity to the problems of developing countries that, even
now, face bleak prospects. Hence, the world must not be allowed
to become a monolith. There must be a balancing factor.
I do believe that the NAM could eventually become a balancing
factor in international politics provided it continues on the
path blazed by Indonesia during its chairmanship of the Movement.
This was the path of dialog, negotiation and cooperation on the
basis of partnership that was so eloquently embodied in the
Jakarta Message, the most important document to come out of the
NAM's Jakarta Summit of 1992.
Since then, the NAM has become a force for dialog in
international politics and as such as influenced the perspective
of the major powers in the UN Security Council. Because of the
initiatives taken by the NAM, the tragedy of Somalia was greatly
alleviated, a peaceful solution to the nuclear issue on the
Korean peninsula was reached, and an alternative peace process on
Bosnia was ready to be put in place if the United States, firmly
backed up by the other Contact Group Countries on Bosnia, had not
taken its own initiative to launch a successful peace process.
In the deliberations on many delicate issues in the UN,
including in the economic field, the NAM has demonstrated that it
can be effective in forging partnerships that would effectively
address common problems.
That capability of the NAM is very much needed in the economic
sphere today. The world is threatened with recession, many
developing countries are reeling from the negative impact of a
prolonged global financial crisis, multilateral cooperation for
development is in retreat while unbridled liberalization
continues to wreak havoc on the economies of the developing
world.
The only feasible prescription for this situation is a global
dialog between the developed North and the developing South that
will lead to a global partnership that will solve the persistent,
systemic economic problems of the world. The most effective
advocate of such a global dialog today is the NAM.
If the NAM had not taken audacious initiatives at dialog and
cooperation with the developed world, it is possible that its
South-South cooperation activities could have been totally
crippled by the financial crisis. But many important South-South
cooperation activities are still on stream because of tripartite
arrangements involving developed country partners or
international financial institutions.
This approach, together with two other approaches, the pooling
of resources and the evolutionary approach amongst member
countries, enunciated during Indonesia's chairmanship of the NAM,
now constitute the main modalities through which South-South
Cooperation is to be pursued.
Consider also that UN decisions on economic matters have been
mostly by consensus. With NAM countries making up two-thirds of
the UN membership, the movement is naturally an important factor
in the making of such a consensus.
The international community today badly needs a consensus on
what to do with the financial crisis that has devastated East
Asian economies including Indonesia. The NAM is working hard on
bringing about that consensus. During its 12th Summit in Durban,
South Africa in September 1998, it readily espoused Indonesia's
proposal for a system of global governance that would make
monetary flows more transparent and less of a threat to fragile
developing economies.
Another Indonesian initiative has been to revive the proposal
of the NAM to hold an international conference on the monetary
situation. In this regard, the 12th NAM Summit adopted
Indonesia's proposal that the next meeting of the NAM Standing
Ministerial Committee on Economic Cooperation should address this
issue to prepare for that projected conference on international
monetary governance.
Support for the proposed global monetary governance has been
voiced by some of the major powers including President Clinton
before the Council on World Affairs in New York just before the
start of the UN General Assembly Session of last year. France
also supports it. No less than the IMF is seriously considering
ways of reforming the international monetary regime.
It is in the national interest of Indonesia that these
initiatives should be crowned with success. Thus far, Indonesia's
being active in NAM affairs have yielded more than intangible
prestige.
The quick sympathetic responses of the major industrialized
countries, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to
the requirements of Indonesian economic recovery, I think, is in
consideration of Indonesia's vast economic potential, its
strategic geographical position, and its many contributions to
the cause of a global partnership for development.
With regard to the latter, for instance, at least six of the
highly indebted poor countries (HIPCs) are now benefiting from
Indonesia's espousal of a debt-relief strategy that would restore
them on the road to development.
Indeed, Indonesia is gaining a great deal of goodwill of both
the developed and developing countries as well as the
multilateral institutions through its active work with the NAM.
We need that goodwill because it can be translated into
cooperation. And the cooperation of the developed countries, the
other developing countries as well as the international financial
institutions will greatly help in saving the day for Indonesia as
it strives for economic recovery.
It is therefore not only desirable that Indonesia continues to
pursue its independent and active foreign policy within the
framework of the NAM but also vitally necessary.
In this context, it has indeed been reassuring to note that
President B.J. Habibie in a recent speech before the House of
Representatives reaffirmed Indonesia's commitment to pursuing the
ideals and objectives of the NAM.
The writer is former ambassador-at-large on Non-Aligned
Movement Affairs.