RI diplomacy fails to assist national recovery

RI diplomacy fails to assist national recovery

Bantarto Bandoro

When the government of President Megawati Soekarnoputri was
inaugurated in July 2001, it inherited a bunch of complex
national problems. Attempts at economic recovery have done
little to boost the overall development of the country's economy,
while regional political turbulence continues unabated.
Megawati's series of foreign trips during 2002 was a signal of
her attempt to secure Indonesia's national interest as well as
restoring RI's position and image abroad.

However, to the dissatisfaction of the public at large,
Megawati's international initiatives have, so far, proven
ineffective at supporting domestic recovery, thus causing more
strong criticism from the public.

At a national level, what we have witnessed during the past
year is a kind of "drama" played out by the government in trying
to prevent the country from becoming a failed or even a junk
state. Our policies, at the national and international level,
have succeeded in preventing the country from becoming such a
state. Disintegrative sentiment, however, still exists as the
government now faces more severe regional turbulence.

This year the public has concluded that the current government
is still not on the right track in bringing the country out of
its deep crisis and that it is unwilling to embrace the spirit of
reform that the country now needs.

In the eyes of the public, if Indonesia's international
diplomacy is meant to be part of a recipe to solve domestic
problems, in reality it has turned out to be ineffective. Time
will tell whether such a trend will continue in 2003.

Indonesia's domestic crisis has yet to recede, but the Bali
inferno has increased the challenge facing the government with
the tougher task of restoring the image of the country. The
bombing not only exposed Indonesia's weaknesses in its
intelligence function, but also highlighted the fact that the
country is the region's weakest link in the fight against global
terror. It has impacted on the way we conduct our international
diplomacy.

The nation indeed faces considerable problems. What we are
witnessing now is the uncertainty caused by failure in the
management of the transition. The solution to the problems
should not rely mainly on policies that are national in nature,
meaning that regionally and internationally oriented national
policies are also necessary to cope with the crisis. The domestic
crisis has undermined our regional and international role and
standing.

It is against such a background that one begins to think of
foreign policy as an alternative instrument that might help the
country out of crisis. At a time of crisis, our foreign policy is
called upon to play an active role in defending and preserving
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic.

This justifies the perception that our foreign policy is
primarily driven by domestic considerations rather than by
international imperatives. But the current international fight
against global terror has forced Indonesia to accommodate such a
spirit into its foreign policy. Here, we can appreciate that our
national development is taking place within a regional and
international environment.

The government of Megawati has demonstrated serious and
continuing efforts, at the national and international level, to
return Indonesia to the international position it enjoyed before
the crisis. Megawati's series of international trips, despite
domestic opposition, and her presence at several international
forums, must be seen within the context of her attempts at
restoring the image of Indonesia, as well as rebuilding the
country's international capacity.

The national policies of Indonesia presented to international
forums and leaders so far reflect the genuine feeling of Megawati
that Indonesia indeed needs international assistance to cope with
its domestic problems.

The response of the international community is encouraging. It
supported, publicly, not only the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Republic, but also praised the government's
endeavors at coping with domestic problems. It is in the
interests of the international community that Indonesia maintains
its domestic stability.

It is also in the interests of the regional and global
environment that Indonesia maintains its long-held tradition of
taking constructive initiatives in international affairs. The
International Monetary Fund, despite domestic calls to sever the
country's relationship with it, has guaranteed funds to support
Indonesia's national development.

International diplomacy has been a valuable national
instrument employed by the government to put the objective of
national development into effect at a time that domestic policies
have failed to rebuild the national sentiment we need to overcome
the crisis.

Such instruments prove that it can contribute positively to
the recovery of our domestic problems. But the overall judgment
of the public regarding the performance of the government seems
to indicate the opposite. The message is very clear that our
international diplomacy will certainly be supported by the public
at large as long as it produces a direct benefit for our national
development.

It seems very clear that, for the President, by using
Indonesia's international diplomacy, showing a sense of
leadership of the most influential country in the region has been
much greater and more important than showing a sense of crisis,
implying that the President has lacked a sense of priority and an
agenda for tackling domestic problems.

This has led the public to conclude that the government of
Megawati has so far failed to address the root cause of our
national problems. Through international diplomacy, domestic
problems have been sacrificed for the sake of letting the world
know that Indonesia still exists.

The international initiatives adopted by the government of
Megawati have so far indicated that foreign policy is used and
continues to serve the goals of our national development. It is
through international diplomacy that Indonesia's global interests
are promoted. But such an argument is not supported by the logic
behind the need to develop better and more stable Indonesian
external relations and multilateral diplomacy.

If the perception that foreign policy is an extension of our
domestic policy is valid, then Indonesia's attempt to strengthen
and promote its international diplomacy, and the seriousness of
its past and future efforts, will not achieve these objectives
unless fully supported by a highly stable domestic situation.

This means that the end results of our international
diplomacy, either aimed at domestic recovery or restoring the
country's international image, would have to be tested against
the public's response. Nowhere can one see an improvement brought
about by the country's more proactive international diplomacy.

It is no exaggeration to state that our international
diplomacy during the past year has done very little for our
domestic recovery, but the government continues to survive severe
public criticism.

Core problems facing Indonesia, such as the inability to
return to high economic growth; the absence of evidence of the
seriousness of the government to fight KKN; a lack of progress in
law enforcement; the continuous erosion of social capital,
notably trust; a lack of breakthrough in restoring peace in
conflict-ridden areas and a deterioration in domestic security,
as shown by terrorist attacks on Bali, require more than just
international initiatives. A leader with a clear vision of the
future of the country is essential if our international diplomacy
is to bring about concrete results.

Thus, what we have been witnessing in our diplomacy during the
last year or so is no more than an attempt by the government to
keep the essential structures of our society within acceptable
limits. By "essential structures", we mean those interrelated
patterns that constitute the basic political, economic and social
fabric of our nation.

By "acceptable limits" we mean variations within the essential
structure that do not prevent society from maintaining its basic
form or from altering its form through its own choices. In other
words, our international diplomacy, however proactive and
effective it may be, does not, in reality, make it any easier for
the government of Indonesia to rid itself of the current domestic
crisis.

In 2003, Indonesia is likely to witness the continuation of
the domestic crisis, and its international diplomacy will be
carried out within such a climate. Our diplomacy will be seen as
playing a significant role in the nation's effort to achieve a
domestic recovery only if the government forms a clear foreign
policy agenda and priorities based on pragmatic, realistic and
rational considerations. The daunting task of the government at
this time of crisis is to translate such an agenda into concrete
policy actions that would meet the current and future needs of
the country.

Unless the government sets clear targets for its
international diplomacy and designs a reliable, acceptable and
well-formulated foreign policy agenda, and unless we have
leaders who possess a wide spectrum of vision and strategy to
execute the reform agenda, the public will continue to view our
international diplomacy skeptically: It will neither support the
regime nor the domestic recovery.

When will the public begin to care about all of this? The
government, after all, is a lame duck going through a long period
of transition and showing no sign of losing its weakness.