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.