I

ndonesia'€™s continual adaptation of non-confrontational approaches to solving regional conflicts, as well as the stellar show of democracy presented through the country'€™s recent presidential election, have been gathering praise throughout the international community. However, despite these accomplishments, Indonesia'€™s progress as an emerging power tends to be overlooked. Author and professor of international affairs at the American University in Washington D.C., Amitav Acharya, spoke recently with The Jakarta Post'€™s Dylan Amirio on the issue. Below are excerpts from the interview.

Question: What are the factors that make Indonesia deserving of its emerging power status?

Answer: The first thing is being a regionally acceptable player and power, and using that to project its global role. I think that is very important.

Countries like India and China are different, they want to be global players but they have no regional support in their immediate regions. Even Japan is still hindered by its very controversial past.

Another feat is the fact that Indonesia is not the richest country in Southeast Asia or even the most militarily powerful, but still seems to be very trusted in the region. Indonesia'€™s ability to mediate affairs and to play a role as conciliator creates a positive image.

The most important factor is the presentation of its democratic process. Do not underestimate how important it is for the country'€™s profile. Today Indonesia is active, independent and democratic, in the foreign policy aspect too.

Democracy has helped Indonesia solve some conflicts. When [former president of Indonesia] BJ Habibie let East Timor (now Timor Leste) go, it solved a big problem and headache for Indonesia. Resolving conflict in Aceh through decentralization and more autonomy was also a better strategy than suppression or military oppression.

Despite those accomplishments, why do you think Indonesia tends to get less attention from the West compared to other emerging countries such as China and India?

Indonesia receiving less attention from the West is not necessarily a bad thing. The West tends to pay attention to countries with bad news and [that pose a] threat. Look at how much the US is pouring attention on Ukraine. It'€™s not an immediate problem for other big countries such as India and China. But for the US it is, as the issue relates to Russia.

Indonesia doesn'€™t represent headaches for [countries in] the Western world, and that'€™s why they don'€™t give us so much attention. A lot of attention flourished after the Bali bombings and recently when the mining law was passed.

The lack of attention is also a failure of our intellectual community, where people only study big countries such as China and India. I was one of the few people that put ASEAN on the map in Western academia and I want to do something similar for Indonesia, with my new book, Indonesia Matters: Asia'€™s Emerging Democratic Power.

Do you think that Western perceptions are mostly to blame?

There is still a very colonial mindset even among some of the most senior academics. They just don'€™t see ASEAN or Indonesia as doing something substantive or meaningful because they think of those countries in terms of colonies, which are ultimately doomed to fail.

The struggle for understanding in international relations is relatively based on '€œWestern social science'€. But I feel that a post-Western international relations mindset is starting to catch on.

How can Indonesia do more to increase its international standing?

My recommendation is that Indonesia needs to have more political think tanks. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS] is good, but it'€™s the only one and that'€™s not enough. Think tanks established by tycoons and individual leaders in Indonesia are in danger of being interfered with by personal opinions, and being overshadowed by the establisher'€™s name. What Indonesia needs are impartial and bipartisan institutions that are independent and far-reaching.

Singapore has done that; it has a number of think tanks such as the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies [ISEAS] and the National University of Singapore'€™s Lee Kuan Yew school of public policy, etc. The abundant number of think tanks in Singapore is what made it recognizable as an intellectual hub.

Some tycoons here are very narrow-minded and usually think of their own political desires.

One of my recommendations for Indonesia to further increase its international standing is to become a hub of think tanks and be an intellectual hub. Universities here can do that, but not too much because they always have to teach.

The best way to do so is to bring in foreigners: Americans, Australians, Japanese etc. have them spend time here and give them visiting professorships, and fund them.

Why doesn'€™t Indonesia have think tanks where professors can freely come, and say, write a book in the span of three months, without any intervention? Indonesia is not that poor, the problem is just the mindset.

How do you think we can change that mindset?

It has to change from the top level. You need visionary figures, ministers, etc. setting up think tanks, but not under their own names.

It must be nonpartisan. You only accept money from tycoons if they completely leave you alone. The government and other institutions can pump money into them too, if they abide by the same conditions of non-interference.

You also cannot be too nationalistic in terms of management '€” you have to be willing to bring in foreigners and place them in leading positions. Singapore'€™s secret to success is foreigners. But the most important thing is for think tanks to be comprehensive and expansive in their work.