'Indonesia brings countries together'

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 10/25/2007 4:21 PM | Opinion

Next month, Indonesia, as a non-permanent member of the 15-member United Nations Security Council (UNSC), will assume the council's presidency. Indonesian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Marty Natalegawa, shared his views on the position with The Jakarta Post's Tony Hotland in New York.

Question: How beneficial is the presidency for Indonesia?

Answer: First, I think it's best to always manage expectations. We must put things in context in the sense that here is a chance for us after about 10 years ago (in 1996 when it last held presidency) to show the changes that have taken place in Indonesia. But at the same time we must be realistic that the work of the president of the council is to serve and facilitate all the council members and work by consensus, and therefore it is the council that will decide how to proceed.

We will be very keen to manage expectations, and in that connection, we are not out to do the impossible but simply to do what's practical and doable within that month. Of course for that month -- and beyond since we are in the council -- we constantly have the opportunity to present our case.

When Indonesia assumes the council's presidency, in a way we have two heads. One is the national head as Indonesia, and one as the president. Sometimes, it may mean we have to accentuate and emphasize the presidency role when we have to speak on behalf of all.

As you know, whenever a president speaks on behalf of the council members, every little word, coma, and full stop must be agreed to beforehand. You can only have a greater capacity in an open manner if you take off the presidency head and assume the national head, as long as you distinguish clearly, delineate between the occasions.

How do you expect to deal with power plays among the five permanent members?

As the president, one of the criteria to judge success would be the ability to build bridges, to achieve consensus and to have positive outcomes in the Security Council resolutions. I think this is where we must apply a lot of energy and effort.

Here, it shouldn't be too alien an approach because our diplomacy has always been emphasized as a bridge builder. We've learned that Indonesia doesn't accentuate divisions, but brings countries together. That's why our presidency suits our profile rather well. But to be able to exercise that kind of function, you have to adopt a rather calibrated and well-nuanced position.

I know some parties (at home) may want to evaluate the success of foreign diplomacy by the noise level created, a megaphone diplomacy type of thing. But if in the final analysis it leads to disruptions and divisions, no one is better served, so it's best for us to proceed with consensus building.

The voice of the Security Council may not be one that everyone is happy with, but that's the nature of compromising.

One of the criticisms of the Security Council is that it does nothing but draft resolutions without getting things going.

There is a concern about that to the level it devalues the Security Council, the expectations. We have been very keen to ensure that the council, when addressing an issue, has full appreciation of the way it handles the issue. It's not about the number, but the quality of the decision. It's no use to have a council that issues two or three statements each day that are not being heeded. We have devaluation in the Security Council. Less can be more in many instances.

The temptation is always, especially when holding the presidency, to have so many whatever resolutions or statements, showing we're a busy body doing this and that, but we must exercise restraint. It's not about the numbers; it's about the quality. And sometimes, it may mean less council intervention or pronouncements. It's a very pertinent issue because we see a risk of cynicism or skepticism about what the council is about if the decisions aren't made more practical.

And we need consistency. There are developments throughout the world. We have one development somewhere, and the council expresses a view in a certain way. Then you have a similar one elsewhere, the council chooses not to speak or does so in a different tone. Of course people will seek answers on this.

What is Indonesia's view of veto-wielding power within the Security Council?

We've always believed it may seem to be out of context and needs to be reviewed in the reality of today's international relations. After all, one speaks of democracy within countries with one man one vote, talks about the sovereign quality of nations; it seems that that principle doesn't quite match with the reality of the wielding of a veto.

But this is the fact of life; we must work within that reality so we are not going to make excessive complaints. Let's make sure that, despite the reality, we can be as effective as possible. We must recognize that the influence to make things happen doesn't simply depend on whether a country wields its veto power, but also the power of its argument.

Often, the permanent council members meet outside the UN for informal meetings. What's your view and do you plan on joining them?

That is one of the challenges faced by countries wishing to have greater transparency and a sense of common ownership in the council's work. We do realize that one of the consequences of having a number of issues discussed intensively is we have the phenomenon of informal meetings where like-minded countries sit together on a common issue and later bring it to the attention of the council.

I don't think we should necessarily oppose that practice, which is very common, as long as the principle of open-endedness is preserved. But the challenge is that we must be kept informed and not be left behind because we don't want to see a situation where an issue is brought to the council as a whole only to be rubber-stamped. If we're not involved in the initial process, we haven't given our view.

Comments (0) | Post comment

A | A | A |