Indonesia’s Foreign Policy and the Changing Global Architecture

December 10, 2015/in ASEAN Notes/by aseansc

Ahmad Rizky Mardhatillah Umar (Researcher at ASEAN Studies Center UGM) studies Politics with Research Methods at the University of Sheffield, UK.

Muhammad Rosyidin’s article in the October-December 2015 edition of Strategic Review provides an insight into contemporary Indonesian foreign policy. Rosyidin argues that Indonesia needs to embrace the concept of “niche diplomacy” as the way forward, with our foreign policy focusing on a single international issue in order to make its voice heard.

Despite the article’s convincing argument for Indonesia’s improvement in its international performance, I believe it missed one important point: foreign policy doctrine. While the nation needs to embrace improvement in its diplomatic agenda, first it has to address what it actually wants in global politics. To that end, this article examines the current foreign policy doctrine of President Joko Widodo.

Unclear direction?

There is some confusion among international relations observers when looking at Indonesia’s current foreign policy. Since taking office, President Joko’s administration has delivered strong nationalist rhetoric on the global stage, a reversal from the pragmatist approach of the previous administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

In a speech at the Asian-African Conference this year, President Joko called for radical reform of international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. He said considers those institutions “obsolete” and a better global architecture is needed to develop Asian and African countries.

Many international relations scholars share the optimism of this speech. It reminds us of the rhetoric used by former President Soekarno to lead Asian African countries, at that time, calling for independence and the end of colonialism. Observers such as Hikmahanto Juwana, for example, optimistically said that Jokowi’s strong position on his foreign policy approach reflected a need to make Indonesia more visible in international politics (The Jakarta Post, 25/6).

However, several policies taken by the Jokowi administration, as well as statements from ministers, show that the President lacks a consistent, strong foreign policy doctrine in dealing with contemporary global issues.

In October, at a meeting with US President Barrack Obama, Jokowi declared Indonesia’s interest in joining the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. It is unclear whether this statement was serious or not, but declaring such an interest in the presence of the US President was inconsistent with a speech he made several months previously that was more negative on the TPP, something that was picked up on by the Indonesian media.

President Joko’s approach to regional politics is also vague. Taking an unclear position at several Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) ministerial meetings (most recently at a meeting of Asean defense ministers, he seems to be relegating Asean unity to the sidelines. One example is the statement to the press that China’s growing involvement in South China Sea should be taken to an international arbitration forum. This position reflects inconsistency with Indonesia’s previous stance of not taking sides in the dispute.

Indonesia seems to place bilateral meetings as the priority in conducting foreign policy, but tends to be very selfish in responding to regional issues (such as the South China Sea) rather than maintaining Asean unity. Although his speeches at several regional forums (such as the G-20 and Asean summits) delivered strong rhetoric, follow-ups have yet to be seen.

It is important for us, before moving on to Rosyidin’s “niche diplomacy” to be clear on Indonesia’s position. How can Indonesia deal with the prevailing global architecture? Understanding the changing concept of foreign policy and the need for a consistent doctrine would be a good starting point.

Changing architecture

So what is at stake? From a foreign policy perspective, it seems that Indonesia has yet to develop a clear, strong doctrine that guides its foreign policy at all ministerial levels. While Foreign Minister Retno LP Marsudi, at her first press briefing in November 2014, mentioned a shift to “Pro-People Diplomacy,” a more strategic derivation of this approach has yet to be formulated.

It is important to bear in our mind that foreign policy nowadays is not merely related to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since international politics has developed and reached across various sectors and actors, the concept of foreign policy should be broadened. It now comprises multi-sectoral approaches (involving economics, environment, energy, and many other ministerial bodies) and is connected with many actors other than representatives of the state, such as business actors and international non-government organizations (NGOs). Foreign policy requires a more strategic framework to deal with a diverse range of issues.

Asean is a prime example, bringing together many sectors as foreign policy actors. For example, it now deals with education, sport, and maritime as well as defense or economic issues that belong to specific ministerial bodies. Therefore, Asean is no longer a club for the foreign affairs elite in Pejambon, but should also involve related ministers.

It is also visible that foreign policy stakeholders are not only state officials. Multinational corporations and NGOs use the international sphere as a place for negotiation. The Asean People’s Forum is a good example of how non-state actors participate in the regional decision-making process, challenging the state’s orthodox position as the unitary actor in international politics.

This shifting concept of foreign policy implies the importance of stronger policy coordination, particularly when Indonesia has to deal with regional issues. It is here that Jokowi’s foreign policy lacks a comprehensive doctrine. Overlapping statements from different ministers in Indonesian or foreign media reflects our confusion when dealing with complex global/regional issues.

This problem needs to be resolved. The lack of a foreign policy doctrine can prevent Indonesia taking a leading position in the upcoming Asean Economic Community (AEC), where we are expected to act as a stabilizing hand in the region as the biggest member state. On a global level, this confusion can also put Indonesia in a vulnerable position in the power politics between the United States and China

President Joko needs to formulate two important things to solve this problem.

Firstly, a specific foreign policy roadmap that comprises all ministerial elements dealing with global issues. He should formulate this concept through a relevant analysis of world politics and its approach to engagement, as well as a multi-sectoral analysis and approach to deal with global issues.

Secondly, he needs to formulate guidelines for each ministerial body to deal with global issues that often intersect various ministerial sectors. It is in this case that we need guidelines to welcome the AEC at the end of 2015, both for particular ministerial bodies and local government. Improving policy coordination is also important to ensure Indonesia’s position in Asean does not overlap other ministerial/local government business.

In this regard, appointing foreign policy advisors/special staff will be important to formulate a concise, comprehensive foreign policy. It is likely that foreign policy will only become more complex in the future; therefore, building a strong, comprehensive foreign policy doctrine is a vital, immediate task for President Joko and his administration.

This article was originally published by Strategic Review Indonesia

Latest Articles

Public Lecture on “Navigating Contemporary Challenges: Indonesian Diplomacy in a Chanching Global Changes”September 15, 2024 - 8:54 am
Partnership Policy Review Kick Off – “Strengthening the ASEAN Charter: Review of Regional Mechanisms and Policy Recommendations”September 12, 2024 - 7:19 am
ASEAN Spice: The Connecting Culture of Southeast AsiansJune 1, 2024 - 3:49 am
RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am

Facebook

RELIGION: BOON OR BANE FOR DEMOCRACY?December 20, 2023 - 12:32 am
In December 2022, the Indonesian government passed a law that penalizes sex outside marriage. This is only one of the many changes in the criminal code that observers warn of the increasing conservatism in the country.

Indonesia houses the largest Muslim population in the world and is also a republic whose democratic experiences and milestones have been widely studied by scholars within and beyond the region. This makes Indonesia a compelling case for reflection on the nexus and tensions between religion and democracy. Is religion compatible with democracy? What opportunities and challenges does the “Islamic Renaissance” entail in the country? Democracy on Religion

Liberal democracy espouses secularism, the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. In an “ideal” democratic system, the state must not endorse nor support any specific religion while guaranteeing the free exercise of religion among citizens. This is essential in a democracy for many reasons. Religious freedom is a crucial civil right that enhances citizens’ individuality and relations with others. It stops one religion from dominating society, hence promoting diversity and co-existence. At the same time, it prevents policies from being framed according to religious beliefs, which may result in discrimination and repression of fundamental human rights.

Religion and its Tensions with Democracy: The Case of Indonesia

This is particularly important for Indonesia. While the country is predominantly Muslim, Indonesia also has many ethnolinguistic groups with different cultures and practices. It is a challenge in itself to build one nation with an immensely heterogeneous society. The diversity in the country resulted in years of ethnic conflict and violence. Even a religious minority, the Ahmadiyya, faces intimidation and oppression in the exercise of their faith. Indonesia’s dilemma points to the longstanding debate in human rights discourse and practice – are human rights universal, or are they relative to culture and local customs? While I am more inclined to support the former, it is important to be aware and carefully consider the context of a country when designing human rights advocacy and interventions.

However imperfect, the democratization process in Indonesia has assisted in facilitating efforts for reconciliation and balancing competing interests in the country. Recently, the President stunned the world when he acknowledged past grave human rights abuses in the country, including an anti-communist purge in the ’60s and the arrest of democracy activists during the Suharto presidency.

Indonesia sits in between secularism and theocracy. The country’s fundamental law espouses Pancasila, which is the foundational political theory of Indonesia. Through its five principles, Indonesian society believes in one God and aspires to create a just and civilized humanity, unity, democracy, and social justice for all. This tells us that, by principle, Indonesia gives importance to pluralism and citizenship. Scholars and practitioners of the law also adopt legal pluralism and believe that different legal systems are complementary rather than contradictory. For example, community practices and customs are considered along with national and local regulations in settling disputes and conflicts at the village level.

However, in recent years, Indonesia has seen the expanding role of Islam in the country’s social and political life. Aside from Islam being a “source of ethical and cultural guidance”, many Islamic organizations have secured formal power, which allows them to easily introduce measures within the state apparatus that cement their own interests. Hardliner Islamic groups have also proliferated, and fundamentalist thought and practices are becoming more and more widespread. Islamic identity politics have also been evident since Widodo coalesced with conservative Islamic factions and appointed Amin, an influential Islamic figure, as his vice president. The new penal code tends to be more religious than secular. This has implications for Indonesia’s supposed secularism and diversity. How can the Indonesian government best represent the interests and aspirations of all?

As Indonesia continues to modernize and extend its economic and political ascendancy in the region, rapid changes in its social relations and dynamics are also expected. This demands a more careful look at the kind of laws and “social controls” that the government enforces. Suppose conservative forces are forwarding laws in the name of protecting tradition and keeping Indonesian values in check. In that case, it should not be at the expense of fundamental civil and political liberties, nor should it be to repress vulnerable groups even further, such as women, LGBT+, and ethnic communities. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Hence, political representation must reflect the diversity and vibrance of Indonesian society. If only one group dominates political and policy discourse, it ultimately jeopardizes the general will.

When religion becomes the yardstick for crafting rules and policies, it creates biases, whether intended or not. Propositions that are credible and necessary but “contradictory” to a certain religion may be rejected simply because they do not fit the personal convictions of decision-makers. Integrating religion into politics usually leads to oppressive and harmful policymaking. Religion is also a form of heuristics or cognitive shortcut that devalues deliberation and discussion. Instead of scrutinizing issues, people may resort to using their religion as the sole basis for their position on a particular matter. Democracies ought to be deliberative and pluralistic.

Human rights activists and organizations in Indonesia have sounded the alarm on many changes in the criminal code that could stifle individual freedoms and lead to setbacks in the country’s democratic progress. Aside from banning sex outside marriage, the government also reinstated laws that criminalize insulting the President and other state officials and institutions. They also increased the punishment for blasphemy. These laws can be disproportionately used against individuals and groups with legitimate criticisms and concerns about the government. It may also render already marginalized communities even more vulnerable. Religion, Populism, and Repression

This trend is not only unique to Indonesia. Much of the world has seen the rise of “nationalist” movements, often within the pretext of religion and safeguarding culture. India’s Modi has exhibited Hindu nationalist tendencies, which have meant greater intolerance against the Muslim minority in the country. Myanmar’s Tatmadaw has weaponized Buddhism to rally support from the public and account for its atrocities.

The use of religion to justify repressive and oppressive regimes is apparent. Religion is an effective tool to unify a group of people and subject them to a specific set of beliefs and values, which may be highly prejudiced and absurd. Religion acts as a moral compass that defines what is right and what is wrong. Because religion is subjective, it can easily be manipulated to serve political objectives. Populists and autocrats can bastardize religion to create a public enemy, instill an “us vs them” mentality, and sow further polarization.

Failed democracies thrive out of fear, whether it is real or manufactured. Religion can be a potent force to ingrain this fear. This hysteria against change and modernization is easy to whip up when people already have preexisting beliefs. It is not too difficult to segregate people and label them as the “other”. When this distinction is entrenched, it is convenient to normalize discrimination and violence.

It is said that Indonesia is a model for “Moderate Islam” when compared to the Middle East; the “Indonesian way” can complement Western values and democracy. It also has the potential to correct Islamophobia and promote Islam as a religion of peace. On the other hand, if Indonesia cannot find its balance and condone fundamentalist and hardliner Islamic groups to flourish, Indonesia will certainly regress in its hard-won democratic gains.

Religion has inherent contradictions with democracy. Subscribing to a religion and structuring a supposedly diverse society using its tenets is monopolistic and can bring about intolerance. It is paramount for democracies to ensure that civil, political, and socioeconomic rights are not deprived based on religion and other forms of cleavages. The access and exercise of power should be as widely distributed as possible. Public office should not be limited to certain political clans or religious organizations. For instance, at the village level, cultural and socioeconomic elites must share power and administration with vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. There are more reasons and illustrative cases, present and past, to posit that religion is more of a bane than a boon to democracy. At the moment in world history when (dis)information is fast and instant, we must maintain vigilance in dealing with autocratic agendas in the guise of “respecting” values and tradition. It is easier to believe and conform than to reflect and deliberate. But democracy dies when we rely on shortcuts to define what is good for us. Democracy dies, slowly and deliberately, when we allow a few to sabotage our freedoms and liberties to increase their own. Demagogues and despots are usually cunning and do things “in the name of God”.

REFERENCES

Evans, M. S. (2014). Religion and political decision making. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53(1), 145–163. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

Evans, T. (2012). Separation of Mosque and State in Indonesia. Policy, 27(4), 35–39.

Głodek, A., & Grzywacz, A. (2020). Indonesia – between religion and democracy, Warsaw: Boym Institute. Retrieved from https://instytutboyma.org/en/indonesia-between-religion-and-democracy

Jaffrey, S. (2020). Is Indonesia Becoming a Two-Tier Democracy?, Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Jamaluddin, M., Chen, H. & Watson, A. (2022). Indonesia bans sex outside marriage as parliament passes sweeping new criminal code, Jakarta: CNN.

Klinken, G. v. (2019). Living in a Sacred Cosmos: Indonesia and the Future of Islam. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 175(1), 81–135. http://doi:10.1111/jssr.12088

McWilliams, E. (2018). Democracy in Indonesia: A Progress Report, Washington D.C.: The Foreign Service Journal.

Nagda, A. (2020). The Diplomat. [Online] Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/the-islamization-of-indonesias-foreign-policy/

Omelicheva, M. & Ahmed, R. (2018). Religion and politics: examining the impact of faith on political participation. Religion, State, and Society, 46(1), 4–25.

The World Factbook. (2023). Indonesia, s.l.: Central Intelligence Agency.

Wieringa, S. E. (2006). Islamization in Indonesia: Women Activists’ Discourses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 32 (1), 40–27.

Short Biography:

Kay Conales is a student of the Asia Pacific-Master of Arts in Human Rights and Democratization of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP) of Mahidol University (Thailand). She also studied in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences (FISIPOL) of APMA’s partner-university Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). She can be reached through e-mail at ksconales@gmail.com.

Indonesia’s Foreign Policy and the Changing Global Architecture

ASEAN STUDIES CENTER UGM

CONTACT US