R

em>Rumors of a rift between President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa made media reports early this week in the wake of a number of events that seemed to highlight the issue. The Presidential Palace in Jakarta swiftly denied the rumors, while the foreign minister specifically allotted his time upon returning from an official visit to Myanmar on Friday to explain to The Jakarta Post’s Erwida Maulia what was actually behind the events that have sparked the rumors. Here are the interview excerpts.

Question: The rumors about the rift between you and President Yudhoyono emerged last month after opposing statements made by you and the President on the US Darwin plan. You said it might create tension in the region, while the President said he was assured the US meant no harm. How would you explain this?

Answer: First about the supposed rift, I can categorically respond that it has no basis in truth whatsoever.
I serve at the discretion of the President. I carry out the missions, the directives and the instructions that he has set for Indonesia. Of course, I provide counsel, advice, suggestions and even recommendations. But, the notion of there being a rift is not even worthy of speculation. Because in my line of business, as I have said before, it is extremely important and essential to be on message.

About the specific case that you have mentioned, the Darwin case, I don’t think what I said at the beginning and what subsequently transpired should be seen as an “either-or”; as a different world view. On the contrary, I think it is a further development. When the news first came out I said what I said, I don’t have to repeat it again now.

The matter did create misunderstanding in the region — I’m not saying just in Indonesia — in general, and then soon after the president of the United States provided an explanation, which the President of Indonesia shared with all of us. After hearing [Obama’s] explanation, immediately President [Yudhoyono] said in a meeting with Australian Prime Minister [Julia] Gillard, ‘Okay, if that is the intent, why don’t we have joint exercises?’ with the US, Japan, Indonesia, China, Australia. It was very well received and now we are actually going to work on it.

The risk in our region nowadays is the risk of misunderstanding, miscalculation and misperception. I don’t believe our region faces a risk of aggressive intent to injure or harm anyone. What there is in our region is a need for more transparency, better understanding, confidence building.

Another event that triggered the rumors was President Yudhoyono’s preference for consulting with Indonesian Ambassador to the US Dino Patti Djalal when answering a journalist’s question in a press conference at the ASEAN Summit in Bali last month, when you had immediately offered to help. What do you say about this?

I find this quite amusing. What I understand from the event is that the President did not immediately capture the essence of the question, and therefore he was seeking clarification on what the original question was. I was seated three rows from the ministerial seating arrangement. It was impossible for me to break the line to [assist the President], and I’m glad that Pak Dino was quick enough to go up there and explain what the question was. We at the Foreign Ministry are an entity; we are all one team.

And by the way, I’ve read somewhere that someone said that President Obama reprimanded me. Where does this information come from? Because I was there, and I don’t think it’s ever been suggested in that way.

Your standing in the back during the inauguration ceremony of 26 new Indonesian envoys last week also raised the question of the rumored rift, as a senior diplomat said you were supposed to be at the front. What actually happened?

Indonesia is now a democracy. We are not a closed society as in the past, or some other countries where the system of the governance is such that where you stand is supposed to mean certain things. Where I stood does not mean anything; it just happened that the spot was there. Why is it being over analyzed? I chuckled actually; I found this quite amusing.

I was early [for the ceremony]. I wanted to talk with my colleagues, congratulate them and their families, and we talked before the ceremony started. The simple answer is: I did not get a spot up front and I did not want to shove my way forward.

And I want to put on record one thing: the suggestion that it is difficult to get access to the President is actually far from the truth. On the contrary, I am more than happy to provide numerous instances whereby accessibility has not been an issue. As I said before, even since before I was minister of foreign affairs, I have been able to bring to the President issues that needed his attention 24/7.

The rumors have deepened because some say while you still stick to a free and active policy; the President is deemed as being pro-US. The different statements on Darwin is one of the indicators. How do you explain this?

If you look at the totality, not simply segments, you can see over the past two years I have been working for the President, developing this notion of a regional architecture, which includes the US and Russia and is part of what is called dynamic equilibrium, about which the President has spoken very eloquently on many occasions.

I very much wish to put the record straight on the implementation of the independent and active policy. If there is one foreign policy principle with which all of us, without exception, are on board it is the independent and active foreign policy; it is automatic. There is no dispute, no differences here.

So, issues whether they be about the US, Australia and Darwin, China and some other regions; those are developments occurring, but now we already have the framework called the Bali Principles.

So, I want to put that on record as well; there are no rifts whether in terms of personalities, accessibility or even less in term of policy. Independent and active has been our choice since the beginning.