Is Indonesia's foreign policy still relevant?

Is Indonesia's foreign policy still relevant?

By Irawan Abidin

JAKARTA (JP): Some observers have asserted that the "independent and active foreign policy" which has guided Indonesian diplomats for the past five decades, may no longer be relevant. This policy was a response to the Cold War, they say, so isn't it about time we tried some other idea that might work better?

The same thing has happened to the concept of the Non-Aligned Movement. I remember during the 10th summit of the movement in Jakarta three years ago, the international press often harped on the theme of whether the term "non-aligned" had any meaning in a world that was no longer bipolar.

At the recent 11th summit of the movement in Cartagena, Colombia, the same question was raised, not only by the foreign press but also by some Indonesian intellectuals.

It stems from an understanding of "non-aligned" as limited to a Cold War context outside of which the term becomes meaningless. It's as if "non-aligned" means nothing more than "neutral in the Cold War".

But the term carries a world of meaning that transcends all associations with the Cold War. Therefore, it is unaffected by the present shape of global politics. Non-alignment should be understood as a strict adherence and total commitment to the ideals and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. And further articulated in the Dasa Sila (10 Principles) Bandung, which was really a code of ethics to govern relations between and among all nations.

Under this code, the international community is enjoined to respect fundamental human rights, for the integrity and sovereignty of nations, justice of international obligations and the each nation's right to defend itself, singly or collectively in conformity with the UN Charter. The international community is also called upon to recognize the equality of all races and the equality of all nations, great and small, and to renounce the practice of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. It advocates cooperation instead of domination, dialog and peaceful settlement of conflicts instead of armed aggression.

Another essential feature of non-alignment is its vision of a world order of greater peace, security and stability, of social justice and of widespread prosperity.

The test to the relevance of non-alignment and the Non-Aligned Movement itself should, therefore, be whether these ideals and principles are still relevant and whether the vision that it has pursued is still desirable and attainable.

Any serious pondering on this matter, to my mind, can only lead to the conclusion that adherence to the principles which non-alignment stand for are not only relevant but have become imperative to our time. Its vision of a world of peace, social justice and shared prosperity has not only become more desirable and attainable than ever, it is also being recognized that it has no viable, desirable alternative.

It follows that non-alignment remains relevant and that its promotion becomes more urgent everyday. This is all the more so after it has been proven that the strategy the movement has adopted -- reestablishing the North-South dialogue on equitable terms, and intensifying South-South cooperation -- has been proven workable to all concerned.

Because of its unrelenting pursuit of this strategy during the past three years, the Non-Aligned Movement has brought the international community much closer to the achievement of a global partnership for development, involving all countries of the North and the South.

Slowly but surely developed countries are beginning to see that it is in their ultimate interest to respond positively to the overtures of the movement for such a partnership.

If the Non-Aligned Movement and other like-minded international organizations can only succeed in getting to reform the United Nations, then global partnership for development becomes a distinct and immediate possibility. In the final analysis, it is that partnership which will ensure the long-term survival of the human race and the viability of this planet. Can anything be more relevant than this?

It should be a source of justifiable pride to every Indonesian that the concept and philosophy of non-alignment was adopted by Indonesia long before the term "non-aligned" became a household word in the developing world.

It was in 1948 when Mohammad Hatta, then prime minister, laid down before Parliament the broad outline of Indonesian foreign policy which, he emphasized, had to be "independent and active".

Of course, that meant that Indonesia was not to align itself with any of the rival superpowers, but, much more than that, it meant that Indonesia would reserve for itself the right to determine its own views on international issues.

It also meant that Indonesia would take initiatives in the cause of world peace. This is really the essence of non- alignment, which makes it reasonable and acceptable to view the Non-Aligned Movement as an organization of countries following an "independent and active" foreign policy, each in its own way and according to its best lights. And their independence has been no hindrance to the forging of interdependent relationships. On the contrary, it guarantees that the relationship is truly interdependent and not a case of subtle domination.

The ideals and principles, for which Indonesia's "independent and active" foreign policy have always stood, are universal and immutable and, as such, will always be relevant, no matter what the world situation happens to be. But the global and regional contexts in which it operates may change, as these are rapidly and profoundly changing now. In the face of such swift changes, adjustments have to be made, new strategies have to be adopted and new modalities for cooperation devised and tried out.

The author, who was Director for Foreign Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs until recently, is now being posted abroad.