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.