RI foreign policy falls from grace

By Meidyatama Suryodiningrat

JAKARTA (JP): Foreign policy analyst Soedjati Djiwandono in a column in this paper recently described Indonesian foreign policy as being in disarray.

His feeling reflected the dismay of many observers that Indonesian foreign policy was not only in disarray, but had lost its dignity.

Rash personal impulses, reckless abandonment of various "cornerstones", and just a plain lack of decorum have all seen a painful fall from grace which could end with Indonesia, like President Abdurrahman Wahid's many cliches, being a joke on the international scene.

Several foreign policy ideas articulated in 2000 left many nonplused. Not because they were innovative, but because they seemed to betray the fundamental tenets so carefully constructed in the past.

What is even more worrying is that they were introduced without any clear blueprint leaving even Indonesian diplomats often privately dismissing their superiors' remarks.

Foreign relations, just like any other relationship, is based on perception. One can only wonder with deflation the perception our neighbors have of us.

President Abdurrahman has adopted a particular liking to foreign policy since his inauguration 14-months ago, including a ferocious appetite for endless trips abroad which has seen him visit some 40 countries.

Palace officials initially argued that despite unresolved domestic problems, he needed to go abroad to solicit investment and convince the world that Indonesia remains a good place for business.

But with investments only trickling in, the rhetoric changed in 2000 with foreign excursions being a way to ensure support for territorial integrity.

How many of these expressions of support can eventually be counted upon still remains questionable as they were mostly polite rhetorical statements.

Let's not forget it is also part of diplomatic custom not to immediately or publicly engage in a dispute with a visiting head of state.

Foreign Minister Alwi Shihab argued that foreign policy is partly interpersonal relationships and the President's efforts were part of network building.

It was during such foreign visits that the President would often utter a remark or pronounce a new concept that would leave those at home baffled.

One such case was the idea of a closer alliance, or even axis perhaps, with India and China.

But Abdurrahman neglected the fact that China and India have rarely allied themselves. Thus far, neither Beijing nor New Delhi have shown any interest in the idea.

Respected foreign policy analyst Juwono Sudarsono tried to rationalize Abdurrahman's thinking, suggesting that it was part of his humanitarian vision.

"Actually Gus Dur's vision is good. He wants to connect the global and the local," Juwono told The Jakarta Post.

But he conceded that "the method to realize it is rather difficult ... How to match the humanitarian vision of Gus Dur with the realities of real politik."

"The difficulty is translating it into a policy, which is state-centered, which often means having to choose between the good and the less good," Juwono said.

Unfortunately, the problem is not really with the "translation", since if it was really a concerted and defined policy why then has there been virtually no follow-up.

This was a glaring example of the most inexplicable weakness in foreign policy in 2000: too many ideas were simply not thought through and disregarded the circumstances and consequences.

It also seemed to fly in the face of the domestic realities of Indonesia's own ability to pursue such an ambitious endeavor.

Another example was Abdurrahman's introduction of a West Pacific Forum (WPF) which would comprise Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.

This proposal seems to have emerged merely as a result of Abdurrahman's sheer disappointment at the cold reception for many of his suggestions during the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) summit in Singapore in November.

There are so many things perplexing about the proposed Forum.

First, what specific tangible benefit is there for Indonesia? Are we merely trying to lure Australian dollars?

Second, it includes East Timor which at present is not a state.

Third, during talks with senior officials both at the foreign ministry and the Merdeka Palace, most shrug their shoulders when queried about the details.

By all accounts, even foreign minister Alwi Shihab failed to present a concept paper when he verbally tried to further introduce the idea of such a Forum during a meeting with Australian ministers last month.

Another case where personal impulses seemed to get the better of sound judgment was Abdurrahman's tirade against Singapore in November.

The President threw etiquette out of the window when he launched an insidious verbal assault against Singapore while still in the island state.

Even if his remarks were relevant, it was neither the time, the place nor the way such racially charged comments should have been made especially by the highest representative of a nation which boasts of itself as being cultured and dignified.

While Abdurrahman and Alwi may be perceived as humanitarian characters and great communicators, their protocol skills sometimes left something to be desired.

Alwi Shihab at the final media briefing of the Post Ministerial Conference in Bangkok in July did not even have the patience to wait till Thai foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, who chaired the event, finished reading his closing statement before standing up and shaking everybody's hand to leave.

To the chuckles of hundreds in the room, Alwi created quite a stir as he shook the hands of over a dozen surprised looking ministers leaving Surin somewhat confused as to what was going on behind him.

When queried why Alwi could not even wait another five minutes to make his departure, officials excused their minister's behavior saying Alwi was late for his flight home.

In late November, Alwi declared that Indonesian foreign policy would be based on Ecumenical Diplomacy.

Ecumenism is derived from the Greek word oikoumene. As a movement, it represents an effort to bring about worldwide cooperation for unity among Christian churches.

Alwi defined ecumenical diplomacy as "embracing all nations to widen relationships and mutually beneficial cooperation."

Such a definition implicitly suggests a political equidistance to all nations irrespective of whether their values conflict with the principles enshrined in the preamble of the 1945 Constitution.

If such is the case than it could explain why Abdurrahman and Alwi have been so adamant about opening diplomatic ties with Israel.

However, let's not forget that Indonesia's forefathers never implied that "free and active" foreign policy meant that Indonesia should remain neutral!

Is Indonesia thus also discarding priorities based on a geopolitical footprint in which Southeast Asia has been the most immediate ring of regional resilience? What are the priorities based upon, then?

If that is the outlook for Indonesian foreign policy in the immediate future how will it bode for our neighbors and the future of ASEAN.

While these questions remain abuzz, another seeming contradiction emerges in that Alwi professes that Asia-Pacific remains a primary theater of our foreign policy.

Some have scoffed at this "new" approach describing it as Alwi's attempt at making his personal mark on foreign policy.

Others jest that he is showing off his Harvard seminary spirit as, in practice, ecumenical diplomacy is nothing more than a fancy way of describing a good neighbor policy.

In past years the poor quality of Indonesian diplomats has been the perennial excuse in rationalizing Indonesia's foreign policy failings, but in 2000 they may be exempted.

Our professional envoys and the foreign ministry in general were mostly sidelined as Abdurrahman and Alwi engaged in their personal brand of foreign policy.

Kusnanto Anggoro of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) described foreign affairs in the past 14 months as "a policy of no policy".

Speaking to the Post, he questioned the introduction of policies which, viewed from a real politik point of view, were alien and had unrealistic aims such as the examples mentioned above.

When asked, Kusnanto acknowledged that it had reached "a level which was embarrassing", using the words "a loss of direction".

Many concede that there is little that can be done to modify the situation as it is the result of the personal traits, or even flaws, of the foreign policy actors themselves.

We can only hope that the consistency of the past has laid a strong enough bedrock to withstand the confusion of the present and the uncertainties of tomorrow, particularly in ASEAN.

History reminds us that Indonesia had veered from its outlined foreign policy course before, particularly in the latter years of first president Sukarno.

But as one experienced foreign policy observer and practitioner privately tutored: "Bung Karno was hated, was feared...but he was never laughed at."

The writer is a journalist with The Jakarta Post.