Indonesia's diplomats have tough job

Indonesian diplomats have come under fire recently, with critics berating them for everything from poor mastery of foreign languages to a lack of assertiveness. Noted political scientist J. Soedjati Djiwandono takes a look at the issue from another point of view.

JAKARTA (JP): There is nothing really new about the criticisms leveled in recent days at Indonesian diplomats for their poor performance. What is unusual is that the recent spate of critical comments was sparked off by a criticism made by none other than the Foreign Minister himself. While washing his dirty linen in public, the minister gave the impression that he had no connection at all with the various faults that he and others have found with the diplomats.

There is, admittedly, a lot of truth in most of the criticisms: the diplomats' inferior command of foreign languages; their lack of knowledge and sophistication; timidity; tendency to "flock together"; "reactiveness", as opposed to "proactiveness"; and the rest.

But surely it is both incorrect and unfair to generalize. It is equally unfair to mention exceptions as including only senior diplomats. It is even worse to locate all the blame with the diplomats themselves.

For the sake of fairness, the other side of the story may be worth examining. The less-than-satisfactory performance of our diplomats, granting that it is so, may be simply a reflection of what may be seen as a process of ossification on the part of our bureaucracy, due to the increasingly centralized system of government.

Increasingly, everything has to come from the center and from the top. Rather than saying what the government's policy is on certain things, for instance -- even with regard to would appear to be trivial matters -- cabinet ministers not infrequently refer to Presidential instructions, saying "the President has given his directive ..." or "according to the President's directive ...".

That, in fact, should go without saying, for the President is supposed to be the one who makes policy, while cabinet ministers are merely his aids. Their pronouncements on policy certainly represent that of the government, and thus of the President, with whom, in the words of the late President Truman, "the buck stops."

What does such a phenomenon imply? Officials tend to shirk their responsibilities. They are afraid to make the smallest mistake and, by displeasing their masters, place their jobs in jeopardy.

They are cautious about expressing their views even at seminars or informal forums in which they attend in their personal capacity. This is true especially when their boss is around.

Why? Apparently because, for whatever reasons, few Indonesian leaders trust their subordinates and few believe in the delegation of power and responsibility. In contrast with the President, for instance, government ministers seldom leave it to subordinates to meet the press.

It is also possible that few ministers listen to their subordinates' opinions and appreciate their abilities, while focussing on their mistakes, shortcomings and failings, while overlooking their own. And in doing so they would be treating their subordinates the way they themselves are treated by their superiors.

The results: Officials tend to lose their self-confidence and thus their resourcefulness. Diplomats wait for instructions or "official reports", which are not always forthcoming or necessarily true, before venturing to take initiatives. They are inclined, at best, to make denials. But what is true is seldom presented adequately.

They are not always to blame. They often really are poorly- informed. Or if they are well-informed, they are perhaps aware that the information in question is either confidential or -- where the truth is bitter -- indefensible and embarrassing. This would be the case if, for instance, diplomacy on the international scene was not sustained by appropriate domestic policies and developments, so that diplomats would have to either remain silent or tell lies and thereby risk their credibility.

A telling remark once made by former foreign minister Mochtar Kusumaatmaja on our diplomats reveals some other aspects as well and is perhaps a fair comment: "Given the meager salaries they receive, the few facilities they enjoy and the sorts of constraints they face, I am proud to say that they are not doing badly at all."

The writer is a member of board of directors of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.