RI foreign policy a case of style over substance

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

If ever there was a time for Indonesia to have a banner year in foreign affairs, it was 2005.

All the elements were in place: A newly elected president who emerged as a poster boy for emerging democracy; a leader who -- compared to his bumbling and lumbering predecessors -- acted with the dignified flair becoming of a president in the international spotlight; global sympathy in the wake of the tsunami; and domestic political stability unprecedented since the fall of Soeharto in 1998.

This arsenal of sympathy, democracy and stability was a powerful tool for improving the international perception of Indonesia as a responsible, dependable and resourceful actor in international fora.

But propriety will only get you so far in the global forum. Talk is cheap and glossy veneers can be delusional.

In the end, style can never replace substance.

In all, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made at least seven excursions abroad, for bilateral or summit meetings, covering 14 countries. That was some one-and-a-half months abroad.

In almost all his foreign visits, the President was greeted with glowing praise. Finally, Indonesians had a president who they could be proud to parade around. Someone who could deliver speeches coherently and fluently in a foreign language, a man whose physical presence was undeniable in photo lineups with regional leader. At last there was a leader to challenge Singapore's Lee Hsien Loong in the height department.

The President -- with the able assistance of the foreign ministry -- certainly won several foreign policy trophies through his diplomacy.

Indonesia also hosted the Asian-African Summit and a post- tsunami summit, along with several other high-level meetings.

It put down its foot in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) as it pushed forward the concept of enlarging the East Asia Summit to include India and Australia, to the chagrin of summit host Malaysia.

Several breakthroughs were also achieved, not least the resumption of military ties with the United States.

In many ways, it was a year of reassertion.

Jakarta was once again showing the Javanese traits of a (sub) regional leader -- it may be shy in admitting that it wants to lead ASEAN, but gets upset when someone else tries to.

Poor and full of pandemonium though the country may still have been domestically, its coherent foreign policy was forcing the region to again take account of Indonesian wishes.

Yes, 2005 was a year in which Indonesia staked its claim as the first among Southeast Asian equals.

Susilo and the boys at Pejambon (the street where the foreign ministry is located) were doing all the old things right.

Which thus begs the question: What about the new?

What "tangible" indication was there that our rejuvenated foreign policy consistently reflected the new dynamics of Asia's newest bastion of democracy?

There was no shortage of high speeches and platitudes -- diplomats and politicians are attuned to the fine art of empty promises and deception -- but there was little "unadulterated" policy action which reflected what Indonesia is today.

Pretentious though it may seem, it is only natural that this country promote, defend and act to uphold the values which its people's have so painfully suffered for.

Several years ago a young journalist in an article in this newspaper asked the question, "Why has RI's foreign policy become so foreign?"

That same query should again be raised given Jakarta's consistency in not being consistent with the nation's emerging values.

Persistently turning the other cheek, or providing face-saving alternatives to Myanmar, it took international reproach before Indonesia and ASEAN started to budge on its from its stance on the military regime there.

Another case of style over substance is the fact that despite all the standing ovations he received abroad -- and even hosting a special summit on investment -- the President's charm has not succeeded in wooing investors to this country.

Of course, the burden should not all be placed on the execution of foreign policy. But it shows this inconsistency of policy implementation within the administration, and the fallibility of exterior beauty.

"Attractive, but difficult," was the realistic assessment of a prospective investor after standing to applaud Susilo during a speech abroad.

Despite the long hours of brainstorming and stacks of papers by officials at Pejambon, there has also been no realistic vision of how Indonesia will place itself in Asia's evolving geostrategic balance. It seems to be neither here nor there.

Perhaps it is too early to hedge bets, but based on the President's statements there seems to be no clue about where the third largest country in Asia (Indonesia) will position itself vis-a-vis China and India.

"In the middle" would be the crude answer, but this is not a simple case of parking a car between a container truck and a bulldozer.

Both India and Indonesia have been reaching out more visibly to each other this year, but what this signifies in the long run we dare to contend that not even the President knows.

So a banner for Indonesia's foreign policy in 2005? "Definitely no, but it wasn't bad."

A better 2006? "Perhaps."