RI proven worthy of UN permanent seat: Envoy

Wed, 11/26/2008 10:54 AM  |  World

Indonesia's current third term as an elected non-permanent member in the UN Security Council expires at the end of the year. Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda has called for comprehensive reforms of the powerful body, citing a need for the representation of the Muslim world and underscoring the fact that the council's veto right has turned out ineffective in many cases. The Jakarta Post's Tony Hotland caught up with Indonesia's Ambassador to UN Marty Natalegawa recently in New York to look back on Indonesia's role in the council. Below are the excerpts.

MARTY NATALEGAWA: (JP/Arief Suhardiman)

Question: How has Indonesia performed throughout the current term in the Security Council?

Answer: It had been ten years since we were last in the council. Those ten years were marked by changes in the international community, but more importantly with changes in Indonesia itself. We have been very keen to project, through both the council and our presence there, the changes and continuity in Indonesia's foreign policy. And I think our membership in the council over the last two years has managed to project those changes. How have we been making a difference? I think one of the ways is by building bridges. It is very easy to accentuate differences, all you have to do is simply go on automatic pilot, and end up saying whatever you want with the end result being a divided council, one unable to speak with unification.

I think Indonesia has in a way carved a niche for itself in the council. On many issues we have been the party to whom a lot of countries turn when trying to build bridges, whether it is on the question of Myanmar, or the conflicts in Africa or the Middle East.

For instance on the question of Iran, we cherished and preserved our capacity for independent decision making. We were the only country that stood out among the others. A few months later on the same issue, in September, we stated that the situation could be resolved and we could improve efforts. We engaged and managed to have the Security Council, for the first time to my recollection, place the incentive and dialogue approach on the same level as the sanction-based approach. It was to Indonesia's credit that we brought about, synergized and married the two approaches into one (resolution). We have been trying to make a difference in the limited time we have been in the council. I am not necessarily an impartial observer of this, but I think most would agree that we have made a difference.

Do you think Indonesia made a difference with how we handled Myanmar's security crisis last year?

I think that is another example of Indonesia trying to play a constructive role. We could have simply adopted a very reactive, almost predictable approach in the sense that this was not an issue for the council to deal with. But our position had to be more nuanced than that because of our democratic constituency.

What we did was ensure the UN was part of the solution. To do that, we expressed concerns (about Myanmar) and also gave them some space. In a lot of instances, giving space means less is more.

The work on UN reforms will start next year. What is Indonesia's position on that?

The reform process of the council will begin in February... the inter-governmental process. This has been going on for 15 years, but finally we are going to have proper inter-governmental negotiations in February. We have to prepare for our positions, and the fact that we are leaving the council at that particular time is, speaking from experience, useful.

There are some countries who believe increasing the size of the council must be weighed against the effectiveness of it. Some say if you have a council that is too large, it would become an ineffective and inefficient. But our argument could be that you can have a small, cozy council that could not represent the realities of today's world. Also, its effectiveness would also be compromised because it would not have the authority of representation. Therefore, we are keen to have a council that is representative of today's world. We are realistic there are still wide divisions, we are looking at possibilities of having intermediate solutions... not necessarily having more permanent members but more non-permanent members.

But all in all, it will be a very busy multilateral agenda. First we have to deal with the format, such as what kind of council we want to see. If there was to be an enlargement of the council with more permanent members, again based on its track record, on what we have done, it would not be hard to think of Indonesia serving in the council on a permanent basis. We think for now we should be talking about what kind of reform is going to be undertaken. If we end up having more permanent members, certainly they should not count Indonesia out. Because of the countries that have been mentioned as potential candidates, we would be very pleased to be compared and I think, objectively, we have made a valid argument.

Then there is the question of veto, and whether we should reform it.

Do you think we are leaving behind a better council than we got into?

It is a work in progress. As a member that comes in for two years and then leaves, we are aware of our limitations, of what we can do in a very short two-year period. But in terms of transparency, working methods, making the council more open ... at least these issues are out there. They are being recognized as important. We need to make the process more systematic. That is not by accident, not ad-hoc and not incremental but it becomes the norm. Our turn this time around has put us in a better state to make any future efforts to be in the council again, whether as an elected non-permanent member or, if the reform has taken place, as a permanent one.

What is important is to have some basic parameters, perspectives, and the way I see it Indonesia has those perspectives -- the capacity for independent decision making, a lack of fear for being in a position that differs from that of some powerful countries, and I hope those are the kind of qualities that other members can recognize. We can make our own merit-based decisions.

But one issue that has made our membership more profound than before is now we have strengthened the basis of our foreign policy because of the democratization of our country. Our foreign policy is now formulated through a very coherent and dynamic domestic debate, and where we are, where we stand, and therefore where we can differ, will allow us to agree to disagree.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.