International criticism keeps RI diplomats on their toes

By Meidyatama Suryodiningrat

JAKARTA (JP): The international arena was not too kind to Indonesia in 1996. More than previous years, it was the target of increasing criticism from abroad.

Aside from the incessant issue of East Timor, international censure ran the gamut from human rights violations, suppression of political freedom to indigenous rights in Irian Jaya.

As the country's first line of defense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has had its hands full.

While admirable in light of the overwhelming circumstances, its performance has often been reactionary and its responses less than adequate to the barrage of criticisms from foreign media, interest groups and governments.

As if an indication of things to come, January began badly for Indonesia when only after a week into the year, separatist rebels in Irian Jaya kidnapped several young scientists, including six Europeans, who were conducting research.

While abductions there are common, the kidnapping of foreigners quickly brought international attention to the separatist demands of the kidnappers.

It seemed some foreign governments forgot that Irian Jaya has been an integral part of the country since a 1969 plebiscite under the supervision of the United Nations, later endorsed by UN Resolution 2504 (XXIV).

European Parliament President Klaus Hansch sent a letter inviting the separatist leaders to send a delegation and address the European Parliament on human rights, cultural identity and environmental concerns in Irian Jaya.

Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas strongly condemned the European response, describing it as "a blatant act of interference in the internal affairs of Indonesia".

Things did not stop there as the Irish parliament soon after adopted a resolution on Irian Jaya which expressed deep concern that the 1969 "Act of Free Choice" was not a genuine expression of self-determination.

While the crisis ended with all foreign hostages freed, the danger of other separatist movements further tarnishing Indonesia's image loomed ominously.

International relations expert Juwono Sudarsono warned that methods used by separatist groups were highly effective in gaining the international spotlight.

"I think we have to get used to it because in the era of information globalization, any local claim can be brought before international opinion," said Juwono, who is vice governor of the National Resilience Institute.

Bombardment

Further reproach came as the government was condemned for its alleged involvement in helping to oust Indonesian Democratic Party chairperson Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Such was the bombardment of attention, that even during press briefings at the ministerial meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) here in July, Alatas, who really had nothing whatsoever to do with the turmoil, was several times faced with hard questions posed by international journalists.

There seemed to be no moment of solace, as two days after the ASEAN meeting the infamous July 27th incident and the ensuing riots occurred.

Jakarta was strongly criticized for its handling of the affair.

White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta revealed that Washington had protested the crackdown on Megawati's supporters, while the deputy head of mission at the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta, Dick Den Haas, speaking as a European Union representative, expressed concern to the government over human rights issues relating to those detained in the riots.

Indonesia's charge d'affaires in London was also contacted by the British foreign office over the issue.

The Indonesian foreign ministry is often left with a big headache in having to defend these domestic issues which it really has no control over.

International relations observer Jusuf Wanandi warned that in this era of globalization, domestic politics has to take into account foreign factors. "A balance must be struck in implementing domestic politics with international interests."

A constant bombardment of criticism of Indonesia left the foreign ministry on the defensive, and understandably little time to pursue its own policies.

ASEAN

In areas where the foreign ministry seems to have full control, it continues to remain rather indifferent.

Jakarta and other ASEAN members have brushed aside international concerns on Myanmar's record on human rights and suppression of prodemocracy movements.

Yangon is very likely to be admitted next year into the regional grouping which currently comprises Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

ASEAN has accepted Yangon with open arms and pursued a policy of constructive engagement. Even though this policy has shown marginal results, analysts have lambasted ASEAN's ability to turn a blind eye to the political suppression.

Knowing he already had the backing of ASEAN behind him, Myanmar foreign minister Ohn Gyaw while in Jakarta in July, when asked, replied confidently that Yangon's definition of human rights consisted merely of food, shelter and clothing.

When questioned on Myanmar's membership, Alatas argued that politics and democratization has never been a prerequisite for admission in any international organization.

International affairs expert Soedjati Djiwandono, when asked whether Jakarta should take a harder line with Yangon, bluntly replied: "Who are we to criticize them?"

Consistency seems to be the catchword in Indonesian foreign policy, and Jakarta's commitment to ASEAN as one of the cornerstones of its foreign policy was evident as it hosted the ASEAN ministerial meeting and an informal summit.

The three decade old spirit of ASEAN prevailed as Indonesia and Malaysia agreed to submit the dispute over Sipadan and Ligitan islands to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

If it were between two other countries outside ASEAN, such an emotional dispute would erupt into tension. The ASEAN spirit helped quell such feelings between Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur.

The ASEAN ministerial meeting here in July was an important event since it was proceeded by a meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Post Ministerial Conference.

The ARF, a political security forum of 18 countries, manifests ASEAN's long-term desire to establish a regional mechanism for maintaining peace and security in the region. It was also important because it brought together high level delegations from the U.S. and the European Union face-to-face with Myanmar.

Unfortunately, it did not result in a significant breakthrough or in a better understanding of each other in areas concerning social issues.

In fact, during the informal summit on Nov. 30, ASEAN leaders strongly warned the European Union against bringing up "extraneous issues", such as those relating to human rights and East Timor, in the cooperation framework of the two groupings.

High-level meetings between Asia and western countries were held several times this year. The biggest one was the Asia-Europe Meeting in Bangkok in March. To Asia's insistence, talks focused on economic cooperation, and political issues were left on the fringes mainly for media consumption.

There was also the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders meeting in Manila in November. Again, here the priority was nonpolitical areas.

While these meeting reflect the growing importance of Indonesia and other ASEAN states vis-a-vis major world powers, the true depth of their influence is still debatable considering the EU's defiance to stay away from extraneous issues.

ASEAN's year-old nuclear weapons free zone treaty also wanes as nuclear powers continue to refuse to sign the protocol of the treaty. This forced ASEAN's working group, headed by Indonesia, to engage in wordplay in the treaty's protocol to satisfy the demands of the nuclear states.

Australia

Wordplay is a major part of diplomacy and this was evident when Australian Prime Minister John Howard arrived in Jakarta.

Howard's predecessor Paul Keating had a very close relationship with Soeharto and had no qualms about Indonesia being the most important country to Australia. Many people wondered whether Howard's ascendancy would signify a weakening of relations.

Relations have not soured though, and both Howard and his foreign minister Alexander Downer made it a point to come to Indonesia on their first overseas trip. No longer the most important, they were careful in describing Indonesia as "of fundamental importance" to Australia.

A rather testy episode soon erupted when Canberra nominated Miles Kupa as ambassador to Indonesia. Jakarta strongly questioned the choice since Kupa was a known critic of Soeharto. The nomination was promptly withdrawn and Canberra admitted it had bungled the selection.

On relations with other countries Indonesia remained largely consistent.

Despite growing economic ties with Taiwan, Jakarta maintained its "one China" policy. It remained adamant on this even though Taiwan's foreign minister John Chang visited in September.

"We remain consistent in our policy of recognizing only the People's Republic of China and its government ... Mr. John Chang was here yesterday in his individual capacity on a private visit," Alatas said a day after the visit.

Toward Israel, Indonesia again remained steadfast in its position of refusing to establish diplomatic relations. This stance was reiterated when Indonesia hosted the Organization of Islamic Conference a fortnight ago.

As a nation made up of over 80 percent Moslems, Indonesia has paid great attention to the Organization of Islamic Conference, despite the fact that as an organization it has remained for the most part toothless in the international arena.

The brightest accomplishment in Indonesian foreign policy this year has to be the successful brokerage of the Moro peace agreement in the Philippines. Several years in the making, it was initialed here in August and formally signed in September.

The significance of this achievement should not be underestimated as Indonesia's finest diplomats were able to bring an end to 25 years of civil war.

The most quiet exit however was Indonesia's end of its two- year tenure in the United Nations Security Council. Much was made when Indonesia was voted into the council, unfortunately little has been heard since.

International relations researcher Kusnanto Anggoro of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies described Indonesia's term as run-of-the-mill. "I didn't see it fight for any specific issues," he candidly remarked.

1997

So what were the lessons in 1996?

Almost everyone, from analysts, legislators to Alatas himself have repeatedly stressed the need to improve the quality of diplomats.

Everyone of Indonesia's envoys must be a spokesperson eloquent enough to respond to international criticism from abroad.

"We're not anticipative enough and are only responsive," Kusnanto said. Nevertheless he admitted that "implementing a proactive foreign policy is not easy", pointing to the need for good human resources and more importantly, strong interdepartmental coordination.

It seems the trend set in 1996 will continue into 1997.

Foreign policy will increasingly be tugged by factional tensions at the local, national, regional and international level.

At the local level there are demands for democratization, labor rights and separatism; the national level will be highlighted by the different interests of the foreign policy- making establishment which in Indonesia comprises the military, the state secretary's office and the foreign ministry; at the regional level there is the network of APEC, ASEAN and the WTO which must be pursued; and at the international level there is a need to heed global flows which include environmental issues to human rights.

So even if Indonesia does not advocate to be as high profile in foreign policy as previous years, the local, regional and international factors will likely cast the spotlight on Indonesia in 1997 anyway.