Reaffirming nonalignment policy

Reaffirming nonalignment policy

Irawan Abidin, Veteran Diplomat, Jakarta

A decade ago, there was a lively debate on whether the Non-
aligned Movement (NAM) was still relevant following the demise of
the Cold War.

One side argued that nations could no longer be regarded as
being aligned with one or the other ideological camp; the policy
of non-alignment was then meaningless.

Indonesia laid that argument to rest by assuming the
Movement's leadership in 1992 and giving it a concrete program of
undisputable relevance. This was the revival of the North-South
dialog, a requisite to a global partnership for development.

Corollary to the North-South dialog was a reinvigoration of
South-South cooperation as a way of solving some problems of
developing countries and as a way of strengthening its position
in the projected North-South partnership.

Indonesia also made sure that the Movement attended to its
many political concerns, including the Middle East issue, the
humanitarian disaster in Somalia, the nuclear issue on the Korean
peninsula, and the devastation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It was Indonesia that kept the issue of Bosnia on the front
burner of international attention until the United States finally
started to do something about it.

The period during which Indonesia served as NAM Chairman was
certainly one of the most successful periods in the Movement.

This was particularly true in the economic sphere. Because of
the North-South dialog, the group of most industrialized nations,
the G-7, now the G-8, gave due attention to the external crisis
of the developing countries and the World Bank took positive
initiatives to address it.

The tragedy of Sept. 11 would seem to have thrust the Non-
aligned Movement to the depths of irrelevance. Right after the
attacks, the United States formed a global coalition against
terrorism into which even the stalwarts of non-alignment like
Egypt, India and Indonesia were drawn.

There is no middle ground: All those countries that cannot
bring themselves to align with the U.S., notably Iraq, are
automatically relegated, by American definition, to the terrorist
camp. The U.S. has reasserted that it is not waging war against
Islam, but it has branded everyone who is not pro-American, again
by definition, a terrorist or supporter of terrorism. Neat.

In this war against terrorism, admittedly there is no middle
ground. But must we approve of everything that the U.S. does?

There surely is independent ground on which a nation can
stand. It can join any initiative against terrorism according to
its resources, without being subservient to any country. Call
that ground non-alignment.

It is a ground on which Indonesia has stood since Mohammad
Hatta spelled out the essence of Indonesian foreign policy as
independent and active. It should never leave that ground. It
should moreover use that ground as a vantage point from which to
speak to the rest of the world.

The Non-aligned Movement is by no means dead; even it is dead
beyond reviving, it does not mean that non-alignment itself is
dead. Non-alignment remains alive so long as Indonesia continues
to exist and remains true to itself, to its constitutional
mandate and to Hatta's formula of an independent and active
foreign policy.

In recent times, Indonesia has done nothing so far to stray
far from its own norms of non-alignment. Long before Sept. 11 it
has stood in strong opposition to terrorism because terrorism is
incompatible with all that Indonesia has stood for.

After Sept. 11 Indonesia embraced Americans in their grief, in
their courage and their will to seek justice. It thus supported
U.S. efforts to organize the international community in a fight
against terrorism. At the same time it advocated that this fight
be carried within the framework of the Charter of the United
Nations, with the UN giving it legitimacy and acceptability.

Indonesia also made clear that it would support and join any
global effort to bring terrorists to justice through every
legitimate means that would not bring widespread suffering to
innocent people.

Since then Afghanistan has been bombarded in a way that has
killed innocent civilians and wreaked havoc on the entire
population. Since then, too, Indonesia has expressed concern, has
protested and warned against a global Muslim backlash. To the
Americans, Indonesia may look like it has changed its position on
the American-led fight against terrorism. But there is no
inconsistency there: Indonesia has always been and remains
against innocent civilians getting killed.

Thus, Indonesia has done the right thing, but it could have
done better by calling its position "non-aligned" and asserting
it as the only possible position that Indonesia could possibly
take.

Being non-aligned Indonesia is against terrorism and will take
action against it -- with or without U.S. approval. Indonesia can
support every move that the U.S. takes that, in the perception of
Indonesia, is wise and legitimate. Indonesia need not approve of
any action that the U.S. takes in the fight against terrorism, if
she perceives that action to be unjustified, unwise or against
its principles. This, Indonesia can do without wrecking its
friendship with the U.S. and their cooperation in all other
matters.

And being non-aligned, Indonesia should be fervent and
vigorous in advocacy that the fight against terrorism -- even if
rightly led by the U.S. -- should be carried out under the banner
of the UN, if the fight is to be legitimate and truly
multilateral.

And for taking such a position, Indonesia has no need to be
apologetic. The essence of non-alignment is being independent and
active. Indonesia has shown its independence; now it needs to be
more active, to advocate its position on the fight against
terrorism as the one that the Non-aligned Movement should adopt.

And whatever may be the response of the Movement, it should
stick to that position, no matter how lonely it will turn out to
be.