JP/Seto Wardhana

It goes without saying, the President has always been an admirer of economic growth. Thus, it came to no one’s surprise when he outlined his priorities in economics during his inauguration speech and once again in his short remarks while introducing the new Cabinet. The President has always been straightforward and consistent with his vision, yet as this new administration’s priorities will be the continuity and reiteration of the previous, questions arise on whether or not Indonesia’s foreign policy will be.

In the past five years, under the leadership of Retno LP Marsudi, the Foreign Ministry crafted the “down-to-earth” diplomacy, or diplomacy for the people. The premise is simple and sincere: to prioritize all kinds of foreign policy that would benefit the people. Thus, foreign policy is defined as a means at an international level to assist the delivery of national interests — including economic diplomacy.

Yet this does not significantly answer the questions on Indonesia’s role on the international stage, as all forms of diplomacy, by nature, is administered for the sake of the national interest of a country, which in turn, is for the people.

Moreover, in the past half-decade, the down-to-earth approach seems too modest for the new administration, as Indonesia’s achievements were nothing short of prestigious: the country experienced back-to-back success in the United Nations Security Council and the UN Human Rights Commission election; the initiative in the Indo-Pacific Outlook received great acclamation; and recently, the government launched the Indonesian Agency for International Development to promote overseas aid programs for peace and prosperity. These achievements alone indicate that the country’s foreign policy is much more than what it has defined it to be.

Defining a country’s foreign policy is definitely not an easy feat. Nevertheless, it is of great importance. The public must not be left stranded in no man’s land, not knowing how to define its own government’s foreign policy or understand its intentions. Allowing this to happen, and fostering participatory diplomacy or grassroots diplomacy would be increasingly challenging.

Thus, to define foreign policy, it is first imperative to identify two factors that come into play. One, how the country perceives the world and two, how the country acts or interacts in the state of this perceived world. Amid a cold war that divided the world in two, Mohammad Hatta articulated the term “rowing between two reefs”, calling on the nation not to feel pressured to pick either side. Hatta said there was a third option: for Indonesia to pick no side, to be independent on its own.

While under his two-period administration, sixth president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) introduced the concept of “navigating in a turbulent ocean”. He described the world as filled with undergoing struggles and made a primary focus on stability amid the global turbulence. The true nature of his administration’s foreign policy was then showcased: meticulous, careful, although at times depicted as hesitant.

SBY elegantly avoided unnecessary tensions and navigated around potential turbulences. He pictured himself as a moderating president, the middle-man between divisions. This was further embodied in his foreign policy motto of “a thousand friends, zero enemies”.

While one does not need to be a clairvoyant to state that President Jokowi perceives the world as unstable, the world through his eyes, reflected in his speeches, is changing ever so quickly — not only in technological advancements but also dynamics in the global economy and geopolitical order. Long gone are echoes of globalization for a better cause and in goes an inward-looking trend. The world has seen new rivalries rising, old rivals befriend, leaders withdraw and unions separate.

Amid this instability and in the absence of leadership in the international community, on his keynote speech at the 2018 International Monetary Fund-World Bank Group Annual Meetings, President Jokowi reminded all that the world was neither a competition nor a zero-sum game. Not only did he call for leadership among the international community, he also displayed pure leadership.

Yet Indonesia’s humility in clearly stating its leadership ambitions sparked debate amongst experts and practitioners alike, particularly on the role it wants to play at the international stage. For instance, should Indonesia lead from the front or from behind? The concerns: The former may hinder or lessen the country’s spirit of being independent from both the influence and the need to influence other countries, while the latter, described by Nelson Mandela as “shepherding”, is accused of lacking the active front.

But what is missing from the debate is exactly the interpretation of Indonesia’s principle of an independent and active foreign policy itself.

When the term was coined, it was of the belief that the best role Indonesia should embrace is by being a fluid entity that shall adapt accordingly, in accordance with its national interests and the state of geopolitics. It could lead from the front on one and lead from behind on another. And this remains relevant today.

Thus, are the old administrations’ mottos still relevant? With the rise of the new and the death of old leviathans, the world is no longer split into two. Now, countries have a higher chance of being at odds on one issue and in favor of another than before. The ocean of today is also no more than just turbulent; major sea changes are imminent and happening as nations are making U-turns and changing behaviors in a split of a second.

This decade and the decade to come will be nothing short of unprecedented. The lack of global leadership has brought unknown variables to the equation. Indonesia has often answered the call of the hour, setting sail on a sea of change under the banner of peace and prosperity. On top of the foundation of an independent and active foreign policy, this is how Indonesia’s modern foreign policy should be defined.

As it is not only important for Indonesia to showcase its presence in the international realm, but it is important for the rest of the world for a country as increasingly influential as Indonesia to take part in world development.

_________________

Assistant deputy director of planning at the Foreign Ministry and associate fellow at the Centre of Politics and Transnationalism at Policylab. The views expressed are his own.

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia