President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono would be the most authoritative source to explain the meaning of “a million friends, zero enemies”, a term he coined in his inauguration speech in October 2009.
In the absence of a presidential explanation, however, and the fact that the term has become an object of public discourse, it is within everyone’s right to interpret it.
If I should grasp the semantics of “a million friends, zero enemies”, I would rather base my speculation on legal-history and democratic perspectives.
It is fair to start with a definition of “enemy”, which, according to Merriam-Webster, means “one that is seeking to injure”. The dictionary also describes it as something harmful or deadly; a military adversary; and a hostile unit of force.
As such, the definition of “enemy” is thus closely associated with the terminology of war (declared armed conflict) or act of aggression (an unwarranted attack).
Zero enemies as an idealist principle, in fact, is not new in academic discourse. Murray N. Rothbard, in his article titled War, Peace, and the State (1963), introduced a “zero-aggression principle”.
Rothbard, from his libertarian perspective, argued that “no one may threaten or commit violence [aggress] against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another”.
In fact, ius cogens (peremptory norms of international law) of “zero enemy” or “zero aggression” principles have evolved for almost a century.
For instance, the 1924 Covenant of the League of Nations imposed obligations not to resort to war. The 1928 Kellog-Briand Pact renounced war as an instrument of policy in international relations. The 1945 United Nations Charter urges member states to maintain international peace and security (and hence, no war) and to develop friendly relations among nations. The 1955 Dasa Sila, which was signed in Bandung, calls states to refrain from acts or threats of aggression and to promote peaceful settlements of disputes.
“Zero enemies” or “zero aggression” has also been promoted by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1976 Bali Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and in the 2007 ASEAN Charter.
As such, taking all ius cogens into consideration, Yudhoyono’s “million friends, zero enemies”, as an ideal for the conduct of foreign relations, should have not incited controversy.
Indonesia was born out of a war of independence. In the realm of ideology, colonization has always been our enemy.
After all, our Constitution, as the guiding principles of our foreign policy, stipulates that “…independence is the inalienable rights of all nations, therefore, all colonialism must be abolished in this world as it is not in conformity with humanity and justice”.
Decolonization, so to speak, was the reason behind Sukarno’s konfrontasi policy from 1962-1966. But since Sukarno, most of Indonesia’s struggle to liberate the world from the yoke of colonialism has been conducted through diplomatic engagement.
The successful Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung in 1955 was the case in point; so is our determination to help free the Palestinian people from the yoke of Israeli colonialism.
But Indonesia should not walk the path of the capitalist and communist blocs, which throughout the Cold War years of 1947-1991, waged proxy wars in their attempts to realize ideological aspirations.
Experience tells us that the attainment of the constitutional call to decolonize the world, and to contribute the establishment of a world order based on freedom, abiding peace and social justice, can be done without resorting to violence or hostility, let alone war.
As the Constitution grants power to the president to declare war (upon the approval of Parliament), the “million friends, zero enemy” principle would curtail the exercise of such power, except in the extreme case of self-defense. This curtailment is consciously self-imposed for good reason.
Indonesia has committed itself to become a democracy. Under democracy, political deliberation (diplomacy) should override political violence (war). Our diplomacy might be critical towards other country’s policy; but it should not build-up a hostile political posture.
Those who are not our friends (those who are not in-line with our national interests) are not necessarily our foe (in terms of act of belligerence).
It is widely believed that democracy’s will not go to war with another democracy, because their peoples (or Parliaments for that matter) are systemically engaged in the formulation of foreign policy and the conduct of foreign relations. This assertion entails two important consequences.
First, let’s bring foreign policy closer to the people and thus reduce its elitist nature. This step should have been made possible since our 1999 Foreign Relations Law is endowed with such spirit.
Second, Indonesia needs to do more to promote not patronize the democratic process in ASEAN. The Bali Democracy Forum is a good modality for such an end, since it promotes inclusive, not exclusive dialog; and engagement.
Beyond rhetoric, it is timely and important for Indonesia to empower people-centered diplomacy as the implementation of “a million friends, zero enemies” principle.
The writer is a researcher at the Policy Planning Agency under the Foreign Ministry, and a lecturer at the Graduate School of Diplomacy, Paramadina University, Jakarta. This is a personal opinion.
