I have been reading a lot of papers and articles for some time now about Indonesian foreign policy and the way Indonesia projects itself in the world. Better, I have experienced it when I lived in Paris or others capitals through for example official events organised there by Indonesia for soft power purposes and for years now I have been living in Indonesia. I also follow everything being said about Indonesia globally. I must admit it is very annoying most of the time since it does not often correspond to reality.
Many experts both Indonesian and Foreign notably from Australia believe that Indonesia will not become a great power any time soon, maybe only in the distant future. It means Indonesia will not be able to project itself all over the world in a manner equivalent to great powers like for instance the UK, France, the US or Korea and Japan for instance. Some insist that Indonesia lacks credibility due to its major internal problems like corruption, human rights, infrastructure or law enforcement. Others say Indonesia is just too small in terms of military so that even if its economy grows its influence cannot become that great. So Indonesia in their minds will remain a regional leader. And even that is not sure for these experts because other ASEAN countries tend to be worried about Indonesia’s rise and to be allied to greater powers like the Philippines to the US or Cambodia to China. In the end, they just say Indonesia is a middle power without really defining clearly what this means and revealing the limits of their thinking.
Despite the real attention Indonesia is getting globally notably from investors (but not only), I cannot contest that Indonesia is not as influential as it should be. Actually one of the reasons why I loved Indonesia on the spot was due to the contrast I saw between what is said about Indonesia around the world and the realities inside the country. I saw a big challenge there. Indonesia is not all about terrorism, volcano eruptions, earthquakes and poverty. It is about culture, youth, innovation, civil society, democracy and many other positive things.
I do not believe Indonesia cannot become a great power over time. I believe it can and much quicker than it is said. I think Indonesia can project itself all over the world and make its voice heard and count. More than that, Indonesia can be of tremendous influence around the world. I always say “if Korea can, Indonesia can!”. Why? Because Korea has nothing compared to Indonesia’s assets of all type. What Indonesia needs is a strategy. Not just some experts thinking in a closed circuit. Not just inviting civil society to be part of the thinking process but involving and actually giving the leadership to civil society notably the youth. I will come back to that.
First let’s look briefly at Indonesian foreign policy concepts over the years. So many concepts! Usually an expert will say Indonesia’s foreign policy characteristic is that it is free and active (bebas aktif). Indeed that’s what it might look like notably at the start with Sukarno’s internationalist, anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and confrontational (Konfrontasi) foreign projection. Sukarno was putting the Indonesian constitution into practice. Indonesia encourages world peace and humanist values to rise. The Non-Aligned Movement that followed the Bandung Asia-Africa Conference (I live in Bandung!) and the New Power Axis are part of that vision. I am personally a huge fan of Sukarno. I will always remember the emotion of an Algerian friend when I told him I was going to Bandung for the first time. The Algerian Liberation Front was invited to Bandung in 1955 although they were still fighting for Algeria’s independence that only happened in 1962. He told me how respected Sukarno was in Algeria due to his support for Algeria to gain its freedom. Usually it will be said that Sukarno ruined the country due to its overwhelming foreign policy that lacked of focus and did not provide any economic gain. I believe Sukarno gave a prestige to Indonesia that has no value. He had class. You cannot buy that.
Then Suharto is supposed to have brought economic growth and stability through a much more modest foreign policy limited essentially to the region and clearly anti-communist (still free and active?). Another concept will be used of “concentric circles”. So the focus during the New Order (Orde Baru) is first on ASEAN that was created in 1967 in order to secure the immediate surroundings and provide security and stability to enable economic growth. ASEAN “centrality” is still at the heart of Indonesian foreign policy. Then the major Asian powers, Asia in general followed by the wider Pacific. Finally Indonesia will just deal with other powers depending on issues but will not have a comprehensive policy like it might seem to be the case today with the different comprehensive partnerships (that are also not that clear in their results). I believe Indonesia lost its spirit during that period mainly because it was a dictatorship. I mean how can an autocrat be attractive anyway for the global masses? Not the same class as the founding father Sukarno for sure.
After the fall of Suharto Indonesia focused more on internal issues to build its new democracy and also recover economically after a very harsh crisis. The three Presidents before 2004 and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) all had their own foreign policy concepts and positioning. The impact was small to say the least. Who heard their views?
Then comes SBY who is said to have brought back Indonesia on the international scene notably by enabling economic growth, being invited to join the G20 by G. W. Bush, bringing peace to Aceh, mediating in the border crisis between Thailand and Cambodia, supporting the Myanmar democratization process, pushing ASEAN to create an ASEAN Community or promoting democracy, moderate Islam and human rights.
Indonesia’s main focus is still ASEAN at least on paper. One interesting debate that I will just evoke: does ASEAN contain Indonesia and prevent it from rising to become a greater power?
SBY wants Indonesia to exercise an intellectual leadership to try and compensate for its absence of clout in terms of hard power. The famous SBY concepts that are supposed to represent a form of intellectual diplomacy are for instance:
-A million friends, zero enemies (sejutah teman, tanpa musuh). Indonesia has no declared enemy so it will collaborate with everybody based on common interests. Well we saw the results of that policy with the tapping of SBY by Australian intelligence. That concept is completely out of touch with the harsh realities of the world. It also sounds a bit childish. It’s like “I have no ideas” so I though about that.
-Dynamic equilibrium. A more elaborate concept but still quite vague. It probably means if I understand that ASEAN becomes the main engine to ensure stability and security in the Asia-Pacific and by inviting major powers to join the East Asia Summit it does not allow any of those main powers to dominate the region. Everyone is in a way neutralized and has to work together within the platform proposed by ASEAN. Indonesia thanks to its flexibility, neutrality and absence of enemies becomes a sort of peace enabler. What a beautiful world!