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.