Pragmatism should be the mantra for Indonesia in the New Asian- African Strategic Partnership

Philips Jusario Vermonte Jakarta

Much has been written about the Asian-African Summit that will adopt the new strategic partnership between countries of the two continents. Some have delineated pessimism while others shared positive comments on the question of where this new initiative is heading. However, very rarely do we speak about what it is in the new strategic partnership that matches Indonesia's interests -- whether Indonesia's active involvement in forming such a new strategic partnership is consistent with the basic principles of Indonesia's foreign policy. Another thing that demands explanation is the difference between Indonesia's recent initiative in bringing countries of the two continents closer and the Asia-Africa Conference of 1955.

It is very interesting to see how, in the past two or three years, Indonesia has become much more active in the foreign policy arena. In Southeast Asia, for example, Indonesia has been very active in finding ways to strengthen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) while also chairing the association. Indonesia's proposal to build an ASEAN Security Community has been adopted. The proposal epitomizes Indonesia's new activism in foreign policy at a regional level. Having been preoccupied with domestic problems since 1998, Indonesia's proposal struck a chord with the Southeast Asian countries for, with such a proposal, Indonesia would push ASEAN forward, with new commitments for political and security cooperation. After all, Indonesia will and should always perceive ASEAN as its corner stone of diplomacy and as a platform from where it can assert its leadership role in the region.

One paramount factor that shapes Indonesia's foreign policy is the country's struggle to attain and defend its independence. Understandably, Indonesia's foreign policy has a strong commitment to anti-colonialism and, to a considerable extent, nationalism. George Kahin once wrote that Indonesia's foreign policy had been heavily affected by domestic politics in line with attempts to cultivate advantages from external resources at no expense to its independence.

As an example, we witnessed Sukarno's radical foreign policy manifested in several forms. Sukarno opposed the formation of Malaysia, a federation that he perceived as the neo-colonialist British attempt to interfere in Southeast Asia. He also called for the so-termed New Emerging Forces (NEFO) to challenge the imperialist Old Established Forces (OLDEFOS). He went further when he proposed the establishment of the so-called "Jakarta- Phnom Penh-Beijing-Pyongyang Axis" to reinforce the NEFO's stand. Clearly, this radical face of Indonesia's foreign policy was influenced by feelings of anti-colonialism and nationalism.

Meanwhile, as Sukarno's successor, Soeharto's basic objective in his early years in power was to restore Indonesia's debilitated economy as a result of Sukarno's radical and high-profile policy. Soeharto devoted his regime to restoring Indonesia's economic confidence. This forced Soeharto to be very pragmatic in receiving support from international resources in Indonesia's development. After a decade in power, Soeharto became more outward-looking as he felt confident that he had strengthened the Indonesian economy and held decisive control over domestic politics. Indonesia, for example, provided US$10 million to the African National Congress in 1990 apparently as part of an attempt to enhance its leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, which was dominated by African countries. It proved to be very successful as Indonesia obtained the chairmanship of the movement in 1991.

In fact, the debates between pragmatism and idealism date back to the early year of the country's independence. Speaking in front of the provisional parliament in 1948, Mohammad Hatta, who formulated the basic principle of Indonesia's foreign policy, stated that "the policy of the republic must be resolved in the light of its own interests and should be executed in consonance and facts it has to face". This sort of policy statement implies that Indonesia should conduct its foreign policy pragmatically, to serve the country's own interest.

In the context of the Asian-African Summit, pragmatism is still the mantra for Indonesia. Not only in the economic sphere, but also in the political sphere, from where output is more intangible. In the political field, there is a lot that can be learned from African countries. The African Union, for example, has established a regional mechanism to nurture and protect the democratic political systems of its member states, through a "peer-group assessment". Indonesia, therefore, in line with its own proposal for an ASEAN Security Community, can persuade other members of ASEAN to accept democracy and openness as a norm and to develop similar mechanisms in the region, without dwelling too much in non-interference rhetoric. By doing so, we are not only protecting our own democracy, but also promoting a democratic norm in the region. In the end, this could ensure peace and stability in the region.

As the Kantian perspective puts it, that democracies do not wage war against each other. In other words, Indonesia should cultivate advantages from this new strategic partnership and go beyond the romanticism of the 1955 conference in "enhancing solidarity" between Asia and Africa.

The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He can be reached at pjvermonte@csis.or.id.