T

he space of foreign policy offers leaders an opportunity to demonstrate their agility in balancing between responding to domestic imperatives and ensuring a state’s survival in the continuous sea of change.

The foreign policy guru, former United States secretary of state Henry Kissinger, cautioned policy makers against the perils of allowing excessive domestic politics to trump foreign policy objectives. Critics denounced his views as cold-blooded foreign policy that disregarded human rights, and led to bloodshed and power struggles in places like in Chile and Iran. Yet, his views are still as pertinent as ever.

President Donald Trump’s decision on the status of Jerusalem is a case of how domestic politics, fueled by identity politics, has dangerous ramifications.

His policy reignited simmering tensions surrounding the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine. Demonstrations are voicing their rejection and frustration at Trump’s decision, which affirmed a 1995 law on the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The question of the two-state solution and Jerusalem intensifies the debate on how far domestic politics should play a role in foreign policy. One can argue that foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics. Others would argue that foreign policy practitioners are obliged to shield nations from falling into short-term traps.

Countries can ill-afford having a short-sighted or low-hanging fruit foreign policy, let alone no clear objectives and strategy. Kaiser Wilhelm II’s impetuous foreign policy of the German Empire fueled World War I and led to the fairly rapid disappearance of ancient empires.

Then US president Richard Nixon’s policy of opening up to China would have been rejected by domestic audiences if Americans had known about it from the very start. The same is true with the process that led to the Oslo peace process for Israel and Palestine. Well-thought-out foreign policy coupled with effective diplomatic machinery pay dividends in the long run.

Our young nation’s diplomatic history has witnessed its ebbs and flows. Blending soaring rhetoric infused with ideals, founding president Sukarno could navigate the intense competition between the two superpowers with the support of his able Foreign Ministry.

The 1955 Bandung Conference was a prolog for the renunciation of colonial practices in 1961 with the adoption of the UN Covenants of Civil and Political Rights. It was a valiant joint effort by Asian-African states to fight for the plight of half of the world’s population to chart their own future without the interference of western powers.

Yet, little has been exposed of the initiators of the Bandung Conference representing countries of different faiths: Myanmar and Sri Lanka, which were and still are countries predominantly habited by Buddhists; India, with a large Hindu population; and Indonesia, with its sizable Muslim population.

Their beliefs in humanity led 29 countries to join them; countries representing almost all faiths of the world. It was a coalition of faiths aimed at nothing but the abolition of colonialism. Humanity united them, transcending differences of identity.

This grand coalition ended hundreds of years of enormous cruelty. Indonesia has a chance to remind the world about this grand coalition.

This grand coalition might be the answer to the two-state solution that has so far polarized the world, as if the Israel-Palestine issue is a conflict of faith. This is Indonesia’s chance to alter this narrative above identity politics. It is the narrative of humanity that has a broader appeal to the wider audience.

Our founders bequeathed us with the power of hope in creating a world that is better than before. It was a dream to expunge colonialism from our modern world. Having lived under the shackles of ravaging western and Japanese colonial power, they deeply believed that nations have to be free and dictate their own fate.

But, more so, they believed that only through the coalition of nations representing all faiths that they can truly embark on a liberation journey, despite considerable constraints and challenges ahead of them. These countries had miniscule gross economies and military power. Yet, they were able to light the world with their intellectual prowess that right is might, as it carries the weight of legitimacy.

This is a rare moment for us as a nation to return, reclaim and reenergize the dream of our founders — the dream of humanity. We must return to the true identity of Indonesia as a country of diverse of beliefs. We have to reclaim that our identity is based on plurality of thoughts, and reenergize regional and international organizations with this grand coalition that achieved so much in the past.

Our diplomatic identity lies in humanity, activism and progress.  The Palestine issue is close to our hearts because it simply defies our humanity. We are duty bound to take an activist’s approach as we believe that human rights and democracy go hand-in-hand.

All nations should be given the right to make progress.

While the past is no guarantee of future success, the present is where we should chart a new future. This week’s emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is a chance for us to stamp our identity and forge this grand coalition with novel ideas and a fresh approach.
______________________________

The writer serves in the Foreign Affairs Ministry. The views expressed are his own.