TheJakartaPost

Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

The main actor in foreign policy: Is he interested?

In contemporary international relations studies, there is a theory that suggests the importance of an actor’s preference in determining a country’s foreign policy direction

Tantowi Yahya (The Jakarta Post)
Jakarta
Tue, June 30, 2015

Share This Article

Change Size

The main actor in foreign policy: Is he interested?

I

n contemporary international relations studies, there is a theory that suggests the importance of an actor'€™s preference in determining a country'€™s foreign policy direction.

Previously, internal and external factors served as dominant determinants in directing diplomacy. It was the scholar Baris Kesgin who introduced the concept of actor'€™s preference in diplomacy.

He asserted that the '€œface'€ of a country'€™s foreign policy is no longer influenced only by the environment and challenges; but also, and more importantly, by the individual factor of the policy maker.

Referring to this theory, foreign policy '€” which according to Jack C. Plano and Roy Olton could be defined as strategies, or plans of action, designed by decision makers to interact with other states or international political units to achieve national interest '€” require the key role of a main actor.

Indonesia'€™s main actor is the president as head of government. From Sukarno to Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo, all are national leaders and they represent Indonesia on the world stage.

The key to any diplomatic conduct is the attainment of national interest. Any foreign policy should bring benefit to national interests, whether politically or economically '€” or both.

As stated in the preamble to our 1945 Constitution, the aim of nationhood is to become a free, united, sovereign, just and prosperous nation. This spirit had been translated by our founding fathers by using foreign policy as a tool in struggling to develop Indonesia'€™s nationalism as well as internationalism.

Ten years following independence, Indonesia managed to attract international attention by convening the Asian-African Conference in 1955. We also hosted successfully the Asian Games in 1962 and the Games of the New Emerging Forces (GANEFO) in 1963.

As a newly independent nation, international achievements under Sukarno were certainly extraordinary, visionary, full of confidence and also controversial.

While other young nations were occupied with ending poverty and hunger, we already staged international events with infrastructure that was modern for its time.

Indonesia'€™s decision to ban Israel and Taiwan from participating in the 1962 Asian Games cost our membership of the International Olympic Committee, which led to the creation of GANEFO in 1963. Despite his success and failures, Sukarno remains well-known for his strong passion in international relations and foreign affairs.

After the era of Sukarno, foreign policy under president Soeharto had a very different character. Despite his low-profile diplomatic style, his ability to create and maintain loyal cadres made Soeharto successful in orchestrating Indonesia'€™s foreign policy. Among those who helped design the foreign policy of the New Order era were foreign ministers Adam Malik, Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, and Ali Alatas.

Milestones of the New Order'€™s foreign policy success could be seen in the creation of ASEAN, Indonesia'€™s roles in the UN as well as achievements in the Southeast Asian Games.

Unlike in the latest SEA Games in Singapore, where Indonesia ranked in fifth position, our performance during the New Order era was almost always the best.

What we are seeing now is actually a decadence of achievements. In modern diplomacy, sport is one of the most effective soft powers besides education and culture. Sport is one of the channels through which people-to-people contacts can be established.

Under the subsequent presidents '€” BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri '€” our focus was mainly on political transition. As we entered 2004, our economic situation improved.

Peaceful national elections that year saw Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as the first directly elected president, and he was reelected in 2009. Indonesia then returned to the world stage to play a bigger role in international diplomacy. We were back in the orbit of global affairs.

Indonesia'€™s leadership and confidence were marked by our membership of the G20 economic group, our active role in international campaigns to fight global warming, peaceful conflict resolutions in Aceh and Timor Leste and the successful convening of the annual Bali Democracy Forum.

Since Jokowi was elected as president in 2014, our international performance has shown a great lack of substantial progress. Perhaps this is because the current government is still less than a year old.

However, with his style that seems to show little passion for or interest in foreign affairs, I wonder if the President has a clear direction in his mind as to where our foreign policy is heading, and whether Indonesia is envisioned as having a big role in the world stage.

Among the reasons that make me doubt Jokowi'€™s foreign policy is his perspective on the South China Sea (SCS) issue. The situation remains a hot topic, especially since China has become more aggressive.

During the presidential candidates debate, Jokowi clearly made his point that the SCS was not a priority in Indonesia'€™s foreign policy.

This attitude not only has given the impression that Jokowi lacks a sense of geopolitics; it also brings into question whether the '€œfree and active'€ foreign policy remains relevant in his era.

An active diplomacy based on this free and active foreign policy doctrine should encourage Indonesia to perform more in the SCS to help create peace and political and economic stability in the region.

It would ensure Indonesia remains consistent with the preamble to its Constitution that reads '€œ[t]o contribute to the implementation of a world order based on freedom, lasting peace and social justice'€. Given Jokowi'€™s vision of making Indonesia a future maritime axis, it seems odd that he shows little interest in the SCS issue.

Recent developments in the SCS show that the US has started to increase its involvement to balance China'€™s maneuvers, with its P8-A surveillance airplanes flying at 4,500 meters above an island claimed by China.

Following China'€™s protests, the US started to mobilize support from the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia. A US senator even pledged to provide Indonesia with US$ 46,000 to help campaign against China in the disputed waters.

With the increase of global attention toward the SCS, Indonesia'€™s commitment to regional peace would be questioned if it did not get involved deeper in managing the conflict in its backyard. The goal is to create and maintain stability in ASEAN.

If Indonesia declares itself as a world maritime axis, Indonesia'€™s perspective on regional and global conflicts must be adjusted: from merely a passive observer to an active player.

In conclusion, the red line from Indonesia'€™s diplomatic history since Sukarno until now is that '€” as in Kesgin'€™s theory above '€” our foreign policy depends a lot on the figure and passion of the national leadership on global issues. When a president possesses a deep interest in foreign policy, Indonesia'€™s role will increase. And vice versa.
_____________________________

The writer is deputy chair of Commission I in charge of international affairs at the House of Representatives.

{

Your Opinion Matters

Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.

Enter at least 30 characters
0 / 30

Thank You

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.