Winning on a big mandate to improve, among other things, the

Winning on a big mandate to improve, among other things, the
country's economy, Indonesia's first directly elected president,
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono marked his first year in office on Oct.
20. The overall evaluation of the performance of president Susilo
in his first year in office, at least from the domestic level
point of view, does not seem to reflect the joyful year for the
public.

His performance in the field of foreign policy seems to
reflect the reverse. He has made political transition toward a
full democracy at an opportune time to rebuild the public trust,
internartionally. He had set the country into the process toward
a full-fledged democracy, one that will guarantee not only the
country's future diplomacy and its international position and
credibility, but also the overall fulfillment of domestic need.
The success of democratic process, at least for now, provided
stronger foundation for Indonesia to be more productive,
proactive and assertive in its international diplomacy.

It is no secret, however, that foreign policy issues have
always been external to the mainstream agenda of our national
policy, particularly when Indonesia is bogged down by a series of
domestic problems while in the midst of becoming a more stable
and democratic country.

But, in reality, the government's foreign policy, in the past
one year, has to some extent succeeded in changing the perception
of the international community toward our country. The
government's commitment to be continually part of the
international community as well as its full support for a more
multilateralized world has helped the country gains its
confidence over the management and solution of regional and
international problems.

Susilo, to the surprise of many and compared to his
predecessor whose diplomacy seemed to have been lessened by the
seemingly unclear foreign policy objectives, has shown his
remarkable leadership in the realm of foreign policy. He seems to
have a good grasp of the country's international affairs and
understand the importance of international links to the solution
of our domestic problems.

Susilo did aware that while Indonesia is perceived as the most
influential country in the region, it continues to struggle for
its economic recovery. So, his presence in those international
forums is assumed to be dictated by the need for consistency in
the country's foreign relations so as to maintain external
resources for its economic development.

The past one year saw Indonesia's very extensive international
diplomatic activities, one that has made the notion that the
country is inward-looking irrelevant. Those in the foreign policy
communities would not disagree that Indonesia, due to Susilo's
foreign policy leadership, is now an outward looking country very
much eager to shape regional and international order and intent
on having its voice heard.

Indonesia seemed to have been injecting itself with a sense of
new internationalism as evidenced, among other things, with its
continuous strong push for an ASEAN Security Community and its
idea, along with others, as to who should constitute a membership
in the next East Asia Summit.

After the tsunami, Indonesia called for global solidarity to
help the victims, and in early January, Jakarta was the venue for
tsunami summit attended by ASEAN leaders, leaders of tsunami-hit
countries and donor countries as well as the UN Secretary General
and president of the World Bank.

Indonesia in a way was performing a disaster diplomacy, one
that help the countries concerns improved their disaster
management activities as well as provides space for conducting
assistant-related lobbying.

In an attempt to add more weight to the country's new
internationalism, Indonesia hosted the Asian African Summit
attended by 108 countries where a New Strategic Partnership was
declared between Asia and African countries to work for peace and
prosperity.

This in a sense is a profile of internationalism of Indonesia,
in pursuit of the country's independent and active foreign
policy. Indonesia's independent and active foreign policy require
us to project a much more stable, stronger and more constructive
and broad-based engagement with outside world.

So, the execution of the country's internationalism is based
on the existence of Indonesia as a sovereign state. The message
sent by such a profile is actually to encourage multilateralism,
the position to which Indonesia has long been adhered to, in
which world leadership is not held by any single country and to
show that our long-term interests is of greater value than our
short-term needs. Susilo's stand on the country's foreign policy
might have been dictated by the assumption of the importance of
sharing common interest with other members of international
community and not because of differences in respective countries'
policy orientation.

The writer is director of the Scientific Infrastructure and
Publication; chief editor of The Indonesian Quarterly, Centre for
Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta, and a lecturer of
the International Relations Post Graduate Studies Program at the
School of Social and Political Sciences, the University of
Indonesia. He can be reached at bandoro@csis.or.id.

2. Pro -- Facing nature's fury
1 x 30

Dealing with nature's ferocity

Jeffrey D. Sachs
Project Syndicate

The Pakistan earthquake continues a streak of shocking natural
disasters during the past year: The Indian Ocean tsunami, killer
droughts in Niger and other countries in Africa, Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, Central American mudslides, and Portugal's
wildfires.

These events are unrelated, and humankind's vulnerability to
natural hazards is as old as our species. Yet there are also
commonalities -- and warnings to us all: We are not prepared for
these massive shocks, more of which are certain to come.

Massive population growth has exposed vast numbers of people
to new kinds of extreme vulnerability. There are now 6.5 billion
people on the planet, almost four billion people more than fifty
years ago. Current trends, according to the United Nations, will
push the world's population up to around 9.1 billion by 2050.

As population rises, billions of people crowd into Earth's
vulnerable areas -- near coastlines battered by storms and rising
sea levels, on mountainsides susceptible to landslides and
earthquakes, or in water-stressed regions plagued by drought,
famine, and disease. Typically, the poorest of the poor are
pushed into the riskiest places to live and work -- and also to
die when natural catastrophes strike.

Many of the key hazards are increasing in frequency and
intensity. Climate change is partly responsible. Both the number
and strength of hurricanes are most likely increasing as a result
of rising sea-surface temperatures caused by man-made global
warming. Earth is set to warm further in the decades ahead,
bringing more and bigger fires, mudslides, heat waves, droughts,
and powerful hurricanes.

Similarly, we are also seeing the emergence and spread of new
infectious diseases, such as AIDS, SARS, and avian flu. As human
populations crowd new parts of the planet and come into contact
with new animal habitats, new infectious diseases spread from
animals to humans. Such is the case with AIDS and avian flu.
Other infectious diseases are likely to emerge, or to become more
severe (as with dengue fever in Asia this year), as a result of
changes in climate and interaction between human and animal
habitats.

Another common element in all of these disasters is our
shocking lack of preparedness, especially to help the poorest
members of society. After Hurricane Katrina hit the United
States, we discovered that President Bush had appointed a crony
rather than a professional as head of America's emergency relief
agency. Equipment and personnel needed to address the crisis were
halfway around the world in Iraq.

Likewise, Pakistan was substantially ill equipped to deal with
the recent earthquake, in part because, like the U.S., Pakistan
over-spends on its military and under-spends on public health and
emergency preparedness. International relief agencies are also
starved for cash and resources.

Governments should be taking some basic steps. First, they
should be making careful assessments of the specific kinds of
risks their countries face, including risks from epidemics,
climate change, extreme weather events, and earthquakes. Such
assessments require establishing and maintaining a system of
high-level and high-quality scientific advising. Bush, for
example, would vastly improve U.S. and global security if he
started listening to top scientists and paid less attention to
political lobbyists regarding the growing risks from man-made
climate change.

There is a growing body of expertise to help get the job done.
The Earth Institute at Columbia University, which I direct,
recently completed a global assessment of several kinds of
natural hazards, such as droughts, earthquakes, and floods, in
partnership with the World Bank. Using advanced statistical and
mapping methods, they identified how these various threats are
arrayed around the world.

Other colleagues at the Earth Institute, and in similar
research institutes, are making careful estimates of how these
risks are evolving in view of changes in our planet's climate,
population, and patterns of international travel and human
settlement.

But political leaders are not using this kind of scientific
information adequately, owing mainly to deep divides that persist
between the scientific community, politicians, and the general
public. The public is largely unaware of the scientific knowledge
we have concerning the threats and risks that we face, and that
we can reduce these risks by thinking ahead.

Politicians, in general, are experts at winning votes or
building alliances, rather than at understanding the underlying
global processes of climate, energy, disease, and food production
that affect all of our planet's inhabitants. Even different
groups of scientists -- in public health, climate, seismology,
and other specialities -- do not communicate adequately with one
another, despite the fact that today's threats often cut across
different scientific disciplines.

These gaps between politicians and scientists, and among
scientists themselves, must be closed if we are to overcome the
risks that we face. Nature has reminded us all year of what is at
stake.

The bad news is that the threats will almost surely intensify
in the coming years, as our planet becomes even more crowded and
subject to man-made change. The good news is that we have the
science and the technology to address these risks better than we
ever have. We can build a safer future, but only if we are
prepared to use our scientific knowledge and expertise for the
common good.

Jeffrey Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the
Earth Institute at Columbia University.

3. Star -- Cooperation needed to fight bird flu
1 x 30

More cooperation needed to fight bird flu

V.K. Chin
The Star
Asia News Network/Selangor

Health experts have been warning the world for months that a
bird flu pandemic is coming. As far as they are concerned, it is
only a case of when, not if.

In fact, all governments are preparing for this event in which
millions could be killed if their prediction should come true.

Malaysia, like its neighbours, is taking this matter very
seriously.

We therefore ignore such authoritative health advice at our
own risk.

With the experience of both SARS and Nipah outbreaks, the
health ministry is doing its best to lessen the bird flu attack
should it occur here.

Deaths had already been reported in neighbouring countries
from the latest outbreak and all the government ministries and
departments involved are keeping a close watch on the situation.

As in all such emergency situations, public cooperation and
involvement are essential as there is only so much that the
government can do to deal with a major calamity.

The government's preparedness is confined to ensuring that
should there be a bird flu outbreak there is sufficient support
services to look after those affected, such as having enough
injections and other medications to prevent the spread of the
disease.

But the public can reduce the spread of bird flu by taking all
the necessary precautions.

For example, all poultry farmers must inform the relevant
authorities if they should suspect that their birds are affected.

In this way, it will be possible for the veterinary department
officials to do a proper verification of the situation.

One reason breeders are reluctant to come forward is that
their birds may be culled and they will suffer losses.

This fear can be taken care of with the promise of
compensation for the number of birds culled.

This assurance is vital to ensure the cooperation of the
breeders, who should not suffer financial losses because of the
outbreak.

Tens of millions may be required for this purpose but it will
be worth it if the problem can be nipped in the bud as this is
the surest way of containing the disease.

At the same time, people must follow the instructions and
guidelines issued by the ministry to the letter to minimise the
impact of an outbreak and reduce the number of people suffering
from it.

The SARS experience has shown the ministry's capability of
dealing with such a dangerous situation and it should not be
found wanting if it should face another outbreak in future.