Time for Indonesia to reassert its non-alignment 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 of the argument argued that nations could no longer be regarded as aligned with one or the other ideological camp. To say a country was non-aligned was therefore meaningless. So was the policy of non-alignment.

Indonesia laid that argument to rest by assuming the leadership of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) in 1992 and giving it a concrete program of undisputable relevance, which it successfully carried out. This was the revival of the North-South dialog as a necessary prelude to the formation of a global partnership for development.

Corollary to the North-South dialog was a reinvigoration of South-South cooperation as a way of solving some of the problems of the 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's life.

This was particularly true in the economic sphere. The North- South dialog was finally made concrete when in 1994 a letter from the NAM chairman, Indonesia, became an important item on the agenda of the Tokyo Summit of the world's seven most industrialized nations (G-7).

Because of that dialog, 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.

Succeeding NAM Chairmen have sustained the initiatives launched under Indonesia's chairmanship even if the Movement since then has had no new initiative that has caught the world's imagination.

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.