New approach to foreign policy

New approach to foreign policy

By Omar Halim

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia is undergoing a momentous period of
change. It is time to assess the direction of where the country
wants to be in the world community of nations in the future.
Before that, we should first have a vision as to what the world
is going to be, according to the present trend, in the 21st
century.

After World War II, the world became, politically speaking, a
bipolar world. Most of the present-day developing countries were
at the time unshackling the yoke of colonialism.

In the 1950s, the consciousness of newly independent countries
of this bipolar structure led to the formation of the nonaligned
movement. Thus, the world had three poles: West, East and a weak
South.

From an economic point of view, through the late 1980s the
world saw the rebuilding and growth of Western European countries
and Japan; the phenomenal growth of China, Southeast Asia and, to
a lesser extent, India, and a number of Latin American countries.

Economically speaking, therefore, the world has become
multipolar. During the same period, however, the economies of the
Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies were in the process
of deterioration and disintegration.

The demise of the Eastern Bloc at the turn of the 1990s
essentially meant that, politically and militarily, the world
became a unipolar world with a still weak, disorganized and
somewhat confused South. The agenda on a global level has thus
invariably been following the interests of the dominant pole, the
West.

Some of these issues have been dictated by domestic pressures
from people in the West, such as the relief of human sufferings,
and the upholding of human rights and democratization, and these
have no doubt been good for developing countries. The problem is
that the application of these yardsticks has been haphazard,
depending upon their political interest, particularly of the
United States.

From an economic point of view, globalization has been
initially beneficial for developing countries which could take
advantage of benefits from increased trade and investment.

These countries, such as China, Korea, Southeast Asia and, to
a lesser extent, India have thus been able to attain high rates
of growth.

However, some of these countries, such as Indonesia, have not
had the appropriate political, economic and legal systems to
channel the benefits of high economic growth to increase the
welfare of the majority of people. In these countries, the
economic crisis has developed into a political crisis as well.

Southeast Asian countries and Korea are now recovering.
Indonesia has been undergoing a difficult process of political,
economic and judicial reforms to turn the political system
democratic and the economic system dynamic in order to be able to
face foreign competition. A number of Latin American countries
are having the same experience. But many developing countries
have not experienced the required change.

But in the coming World Trade Organization (WTO) trade
negotiation round, although developed countries have not met some
of the agreed goals of liberalization, e.g. in textile, clothing
and agriculture, the West and particularly the United States will
be pushing very hard to impose another issue, i.e. labor
standards.

The upholding of such principles, like that on environment and
human rights, as desirable as they are, should be raised in other
contexts, and not trade. Raised in the context of trade, these
issues could be used to pose impediments to developing countries'
exports.

Furthermore, it is also probable that the issue of a
multilateral investment regime could be raised either in the WTO
negotiation context, or elsewhere. Are developing countries, as a
whole, ready for a further opening up of their economies, without
being forced into a position of submission to the mighty forces
of the much richer nations?

If such a reasoning is extended further, what will the role of
developing economies be, in general, at the end of next century?
With subservient economies, what would be the role of developing
nations politically at that time?

Every nation on earth needs to aim, as a goal, in building a
democratic and equitable community of nations. This is consistent
with the principles so dear to the West.

Developing countries should, on their part, strive to attain
the same objective. In doing so, they have firstly to undertake
the necessary reforms in order to make their political system
responsive to the aspirations of their people and their economies
efficient and competitive to face challenges from outside.

Second, since not every developing country can expand trade
and tap capital and technology flows from the West, they should
tap each other's vast natural and human resources, technologies
and capital to expand their own potential.

Following the above rationale, the new Indonesian government
could consider, as a framework for policy, countries of the world
in accordance with three concentric circles. (1) The innermost
circle consists of the dominant countries: United States, Japan
and Europe. These are countries that control world trade, capital
and technology. (2) The second circle comprises: ASEAN, China,
India and Russia; and (3) other developing countries.

Indonesia should, in principle, maintain the present
relationship with countries of the first circle. In this context,
Indonesia should maintain its representation in the United
Nations and its specialized agencies, especially as a training
ground for its junior and mid-level diplomats, and strengthen its
representation in WTO and in international and regional financial
organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
World Bank and Asian Development Bank.

However, Indonesia could have a closer political relationship
with Japan, if Japan is able to have a more independent
relationship with the United States. Perhaps the resolution of
the North Korea issue and a better relationship with China would
make this possible. Similarly, with Korea.

Finally, much closer political and economic relationships with
European Union countries should be explored.

In the immediate future, Indonesia should intensify
relationships with ASEAN countries. This is an utmost priority.
This should form the base from which ASEAN countries, including
Indonesia, could develop and intensify relationships with other
countries.

In addition, President Abdurrahman Wahid has correctly
identified the need to expand our relationships with China and
India, the two most populated nations on earth with a good record
of economic progress. China and India have in the past few years
improved relationships with each other.

However, it seems desirable for us to look into the third most
populous country, Russia, and explore the possibility of closer
relations.

In a way, Russia is in a similar situation as Indonesia is
regarding the West. In addition, Russia has had good
relationships with India and it has also approached China to
reestablish closer cooperation. With similar political interests,
Indonesia seems to stand to benefit from closer cooperation with
these three big countries.

With closer cooperation with second circle countries,
Indonesia could more convincingly approach third circle
countries, i.e. other developing countries.

Initially, the approach should be made to those larger, or
economically important, countries in different regions. In
Africa, closer relationships should be established with Egypt,
Nigeria, South Africa and Kenya and the relatively high-growth
countries of Ghana, Uganda and the Ivory Coast.

The others, such as Algeria, Angola, Ethiopia, the Congo,
Morocco, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, should be approached
when the time is appropriate.

In West Asia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates,
Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Palestine, Israel and Lebanon should be
approached for closer cooperation.

In Central and South Asia, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan and
Khazhakstan would be appropriate candidates. In the Pacific area,
Papua New Guinea, Fiji and perhaps Western Samoa could be
approached. Finally, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Colombia,
Peru and Venezuela would be obvious countries from Latin America.

The cooperation sought should be in the political, security,
economic, technological and/or cultural fields. Indonesia, and if
possible with some ASEAN countries, should explore possibilities
of cooperation with those countries in different fields.

Political cooperation should be concrete in the form of
political policies that are implementable at international or
regional forums to form a stronger bargaining position of the
developing countries concerned.

There are also those countries that are not large and
politically important, but are very beneficial to have a close
economic cooperation with. The purpose of close cooperation or
having a relationship is to increase the political and economic
position of Indonesia and corresponding developing countries in
world affairs.

To attain such close cooperation with third circle countries
will take decades of consistent and focused work. But the
beginning should be made. The alternative is, in the long-run,
developing countries as a group will always occupy inferior
positions in world affairs.

If second and third circle countries agree to cooperate and
take concrete action to establish close relations, the world will
eventually be more egalitarian, democratic and peaceful, and
Indonesia, taking the initiative, will truly be one of the
world's leading countries.

The writer, a political observer, is a former senior United
Nations staff member residing in Jakarta.

Window: Political cooperation should be concrete in the form of political
policies that are implementable at international or regional
forums to form a stronger bargaining position of the developing
countries concerned.