Quo vadis, Indonesia, a friend of everybody?

[Reashot Xigwin]

Chappy Hakim, Jakarta | Opinion | Tue, October 30 2012, 8:46 AM


The presidential election will be held in 2014, which means that it is too early to discuss candidates.

“Belanda masih jauh”, as a local proverb goes, meaning that it is too far away to catch. In spite of that, a number of people (despite saying the majority) have started to stimulate the public by “releasing” an ideal president, who is a resolute-and-responsive figure.

Due to dissatisfaction toward the current administration, there is even a joke, which is somewhat sarcastic, saying that we should vote for a real president, not a songwriter, in the next presidential election!

Before discussing that further, let us start with world development in general within the national and security interests of developed countries, to be exact the United States framework.

Currently, the United States is still struggling from the financial crisis. In the meantime, European countries are also having the same problem as the US.

On security, American international policies were clearly conveyed during the last presidential debate. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, claimed that Obama’s policies stipulated “clash escalation” in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden highlighted that the development of the Middle East was not the only article of the international policies under the Obama presidency.

Biden proclaimed that the United States would do more, yet would ask more of their partners in return. Who are the “partners” he was referring to? For many reasons, it is not difficult to decipher who exactly these “partners” are.

There are countries who fully support (not to say blindly act) every single international policy of the US.

So, how about China? Analyzing the US’ policies towards China during the US presidential debate is pretty interesting. US President Barack Obama stated that China was not only the “enemy” of the US, but also a potential partner. For Romney, China is a good partner to work with should they be responsible.

Thus, it is obvious that the US is indecisive when it comes to China.

In relation to that, the US Marines home base in Darwin, Australia, is another America-against-China policy in the region. The home base was a sensitive issue during a recent meeting between Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

PM Gillard stated that the home base was aspired to for disaster emergency issues. It would be so naive, however, to merely believe what she said. Historically, there has never been the deployment of a country’s military only for natural disaster management purposes.

There must be a well-established agenda behind it. It is not a natural disaster, indeed. So, does it have anything to do with China’s increasing global power lately? Or is it because of the US new partnership policies, as claimed by Biden?

Now, let us look at the next improvement regarding the recent weapons system procurement. I bet you still remember how difficult it was to get the United States to supply the fighter’s parts.

Now, the US has officially made a decision, to grant 24 F-16 Fighting Falcons!

In a meeting with Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa in Washigton DC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the US government would offer eight military helicopter AH-64/D Apaches to Indonesia. For your information, the Apache is one of the aircraft that is very unlikely to be offered to non-Allies. But, there is no certainty as to whether the Indonesian Army would take that chance in order to obtain Apaches. So, what is happening?

On the other hand, in the procurement process, Indonesian aircraft manufacturer PTDI seems to be an agent of Airbus Military for the C-295, which was somehow believed to be the competitor of B.J. Habibie’s masterpiece — the N-250.

It’s interesting that the procurement of Spanish aircraft was made during the crisis in the matador country. Thus, some people started to raise questions as to whether Indonesia was trying to be Spain’s “savior”.

Indonesia is hand in hand with South Korea, who was facing a serious conflict with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in manufacturing a sort of variant of the F-16 fighter aircraft.

Why should the Indonesian government have an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) with a country that is “engaging” in a war and why doesn’t the Indonesian government order it from the F-16 manufacturer itself?

All those questions lead to a rational answer. Among those conflicts, Indonesia is trying to uphold (popularize to be exact) a new political policy to befriend all countries. Indonesia is experiencing magnificent economic growth that other countries currently don’t have.

For this reason, Indonesia is so confident in putting forward the glamorous tagline, “Million Friends, Zero Enemies”, as its foreign policy. It somehow sounds irrelevant in comparison to what Aristotle once said that “A friend to all is a friend to none.”

Thus, we end up with a simple conclusion, “Quo vadis, Indonesia?”

The writer is a former Air Force chief of staff and chairman of CSE Aviation

Quo vadis, Indonesia, a friend of everybody? | The Jakarta Post

 

[Viet]

It is not necessary bad to be a friend of everybody. In contrast a enemy of everybody is a serious problem.

 

[JSCh]

Biden proclaimed that the United States would do more, yet would ask more of their partners in return. Who are the “partners” he was referring to? For many reasons, it is not difficult to decipher who exactly these “partners” are.

There are countries who fully support (not to say blindly act) every single international policy of the US.

So called "smart power"

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

'A million friends’ diplomacy
Siswo Pramono, Jakarta | Opinion | Sun, June 13 2010, 10:37 AM

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono would be the most authoritative source to explain the meaning of “a million friends, zero enemies”, a term he coined in his inauguration speech in October 2009.

In the absence of a presidential explanation, however, and the fact that the term has become an object of public discourse, it is within everyone’s right to interpret it.

If I should grasp the semantics of “a million friends, zero enemies”, I would rather base my speculation on legal-history and democratic perspectives.

It is fair to start with a definition of “enemy”, which, according to Merriam-Webster, means “one that is seeking to injure”. The dictionary also describes it as something harmful or deadly; a military adversary; and a hostile unit of force.

As such, the definition of “enemy” is thus closely associated with the terminology of war (declared armed conflict) or act of aggression (an unwarranted attack).

Zero enemies as an idealist principle, in fact, is not new in academic discourse. Murray N. Rothbard, in his article titled War, Peace, and the State (1963), introduced a “zero-aggression principle”.

Rothbard, from his libertarian perspective, argued that “no one may threaten or commit violence [aggress] against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another”.

In fact, ius cogens (peremptory norms of international law) of “zero enemy” or “zero aggression” principles have evolved for almost a century.

For instance, the 1924 Covenant of the League of Nations imposed obligations not to resort to war. The 1928 Kellog-Briand Pact renounced war as an instrument of policy in international relations. The 1945 United Nations Charter urges member states to maintain international peace and security (and hence, no war) and to develop friendly relations among nations. The 1955 Dasa Sila, which was signed in Bandung, calls states to refrain from acts or threats of aggression and to promote peaceful settlements of disputes.

“Zero enemies” or “zero aggression” has also been promoted by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1976 Bali Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, and in the 2007 ASEAN Charter.

As such, taking all ius cogens into consideration, Yudhoyono’s “million friends, zero enemies”, as an ideal for the conduct of foreign relations, should have not incited controversy.

Indonesia was born out of a war of independence. In the realm of ideology, colonization has always been our enemy.

After all, our Constitution, as the guiding principles of our foreign policy, stipulates that “…independence is the inalienable rights of all nations, therefore, all colonialism must be abolished in this world as it is not in conformity with humanity and justice”.

Decolonization, so to speak, was the reason behind Sukarno’s konfrontasi policy from 1962-1966. But since Sukarno, most of Indonesia’s struggle to liberate the world from the yoke of colonialism has been conducted through diplomatic engagement.

The successful Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung in 1955 was the case in point; so is our determination to help free the Palestinian people from the yoke of Israeli colonialism.

But Indonesia should not walk the path of the capitalist and communist blocs, which throughout the Cold War years of 1947-1991, waged proxy wars in their attempts to realize ideological aspirations.

Experience tells us that the attainment of the constitutional call to decolonize the world, and to contribute the establishment of a world order based on freedom, abiding peace and social justice, can be done without resorting to violence or hostility, let alone war.

As the Constitution grants power to the president to declare war (upon the approval of Parliament), the “million friends, zero enemy” principle would curtail the exercise of such power, except in the extreme case of self-defense. This curtailment is consciously self-imposed for good reason.

Indonesia has committed itself to become a democracy. Under democracy, political deliberation (diplomacy) should override political violence (war). Our diplomacy might be critical towards other country’s policy; but it should not build-up a hostile political posture.

Those who are not our friends (those who are not in-line with our national interests) are not necessarily our foe (in terms of act of belligerence).

It is widely believed that democracy’s will not go to war with another democracy, because their peoples (or Parliaments for that matter) are systemically engaged in the formulation of foreign policy and the conduct of foreign relations. This assertion entails two important consequences.

First, let’s bring foreign policy closer to the people and thus reduce its elitist nature. This step should have been made possible since our 1999 Foreign Relations Law is endowed with such spirit.

Second, Indonesia needs to do more to promote not patronize the democratic process in ASEAN. The Bali Democracy Forum is a good modality for such an end, since it promotes inclusive, not exclusive dialog; and engagement.

Beyond rhetoric, it is timely and important for Indonesia to empower people-centered diplomacy as the implementation of “a million friends, zero enemies” principle.


The writer is a researcher at the Policy Planning Agency under the Foreign Ministry, and a lecturer at the Graduate School of Diplomacy, Paramadina University, Jakarta. This is a personal opinion.

 

[Cherokee]

Indonesian Foreign Policymakers are Very Smart . Sukarno was a Founding Member of Non Aligned Movement like Nehru in India . Both India and Indonesia has moved from Non-Alignment policy to multiple Alignment or "Non Alignment version 2.0" . Great work Indeed .

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Indonesian Foreign Policymakers are Very Smart . Sukarno was a Founding Member of Non Aligned Movement like Nehru in India . Both India and Indonesia has moved from Non-Alignment policy to multiple Alignment or "Non Alignment version 2.0" . Great work Indeed .

Why thank you let's hope both country (India & Indonesia) remain a good friend .A country must always uses Diplomacy, be flexible & pragmatic in their foreign policy.