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.