Foreign policy white paper untimely

Yayan GH Mulyana’s concern, which was published in The Jakarta Post, on Feb. 7, on the necessity of having a foreign policy white paper is worth discussing.

Mulyana appears to discuss this issue based on examples provided by other countries, particularly major powers such as the United States and Australia, which have formulated their own white papers, grand strategies and objectives for the future implementation of foreign policy.

Because each paper is written for a different purpose, we should be careful when analyzing the potential benefit of a white paper. US politician Mitt Romney’s foreign policy white paper is written to be persuasive to voters while the Australian white paper, which is written by the government, may be considered as a guideline to serve national interests.

I tend to agree with Mulyana’s third point on the benefits of having the white paper. In his view, the people’s awareness of foreign affairs and foreign policy can be raised by adopting a white paper, and it would serve an educational purpose. But, I believe this would potentially create an endless debate over which comes first, the chicken or the egg.

While I may also agree with Mulyana’s contention that Indonesia can wait to adopt a foreign policy white paper, there are some conditions that would make a white paper necessary.

In the context of time and public awareness of foreign policy, looking at the necessity of a white paper is important. Because there is not much initial public interest and before we adopt the foreign policy white paper, there should be an effort to promote greater public awareness of the benefits of paying attention to foreign policy. Otherwise, the white paper would only offer pointless guidelines.

A white paper should not be treated as a collection of nicely arranged ideas. Instead, it should consist of realistic objectives that can be achieved by our foreign policy resources and actors.

Mulyana refers to Australia’s public consultation process, which is essential for promoting and legitimizing the white paper. I would agree that public consultation is significant. However, in the case of Indonesia, the public may not be fully included in the process because they are not sufficiently informed about foreign affairs.

After the public is informed about the benefits of having a foreign policy white paper in this interrelated world, they will be more likely to appreciate the initiative of pursuing our national interests abroad.

However, we cannot be certain that the process of formulating the white paper is based on consensus and is discussed democratically among all relevant actors. In Indonesia, this process might be more complicated because we have multiple layers of foreign policy actors.

Despite the existing multi-actors of Indonesian foreign policy, it appears that foreign policy decision-making may rest with some elites: the President, his inner circle and the Foreign Ministry. Later, we should promote more public involvement in this process.

The public should play a crucial role in our foreign policy decision-making because foreign policy is about pursuing national interests. Thus, the public should not be excluded from this process. In the future, we hope to hear more foreign policy goals being achieved by our diplomats and the Foreign Ministry reconcile different strategic foreign policy choices.

We would like to hear more about how the ministry serves as a leader in the organization of foreign policy-making. Additionally, we would like to hear about how the ministry encourages the public to participate in any diplomatic initiatives.

Anyhow, we should also acknowledge that democratization in foreign policy-making would certainly take time. Developing a white paper is time consuming especially when the multitude of foreign policy actors are involved. Because the public is mostly uneducated about foreign affairs, designing a foreign policy white paper will be a lengthy process.

Two questions that we must ask are why would we expect that the plan can be applicable and would a foreign policy white paper be just another grand strategy on paper that is difficult to implement?

Romney’s formulation, written by a team of experts, should be analyzed by looking at whether this team will become his security advisers if he wins the presidency. If they do not, it could be problematic because Romney may have limited experience in formulating foreign policy.

Additionally, because Romney is trying to attract voters, it could be that his white paper draft may accurately reflect US national interests. However, at the level of implementation there would certainly be some shifts. In this case, flexibility could pose a major dilemma. The development of a white paper should be based purely on the interpretation of national interests, which will be difficult to determine in Indonesia.

As is often the case, it is easier said than done. Formulating a white paper that offers benefits as Mulyana has proposed is difficult and hard to implement. At the least, let the necessity of a foreign policy white paper be the discourse for a while.

We already have a guiding principle for our foreign policy, bebas aktif or independent and active. To achieve intermestic national interests, Indonesia needs only to give this principle priority in guiding future foreign policy plans and actions.

The writer is a lecturer at the department of international relations, Paramadina University Jakarta, and a Fulbright-DIKTI PhD student at the Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, the US.