Assessing President Yudhoyono’s foreign policy Yayan GH Mulyana  ;   An assistant to the President’s special staff  for international relations

JAKARTA POST,  03 Maret 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

Indonesian foreign policy in 2013 was marked by intensive diplomacy at bilateral, regional as well as global levels and was one of the busiest periods for President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s international activities during his second term. Bilateral diplomacy under Yudhoyono last year tapped into the potential of partners in the Asia Pacific (China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, South Korea, Timor Leste and Vietnam), the Middle East (Saudi Arabia), Africa (Liberia and Nigeria), Europe (Belarus, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Sweden and the Netherlands) and the Americas (Argentina, Mexico and Peru). New and renewed commitments with those partners aimed to expand and deepen bilateral relations in various fields. Advancements toward comprehensive or strategic bilateral relations were also made with some countries. In July 2013, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea signed up to a comprehensive partnership arrangement. In November, Indonesia and the Netherlands signed a similar deal. And in October, Indonesia and China agreed to elevate bilateral relations to a comprehensive strategic partnership. Within the bilateral framework with the Netherlands, Indonesia also promoted triangular cooperation on fisheries and aquaculture. Under this modality, Indonesia, together with the Netherlands, can serve as a provider of development cooperation support to other developing countries. These all certainly invigorated the growing architecture of Indonesia’s bilateralism during 2013. However, by the end of 2013, the revelation of Australia’s spying activities in Indonesia caused a fracture in Indonesian–Australian relations and Indonesia boldly responded. The whole architecture of Indonesia’s bilateralism remained intact in 2013. It even built more invaluable dividends in a bid to create more tangible impacts from foreign policy on national progress and development. Regionally, one of Indonesia’s significant contributions was the commencement of formal consultations between ASEAN and China on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea — which is essential to the peace, stability and prosperity of the region. Notable progress on the ASEAN Community — comprising the political and security community, the economic community and also the social and cultural community — was also made in 2013. In 2013 Indonesia once again had a historic opportunity to assume the chairmanship and leadership of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Indonesia seized this opportunity to ensure the full realization of the Bogor Goals while injecting two other priorities — sustainable growth with equity and connectivity — into the APEC agenda. To ensure that non-APEC Asia-Pacific economies benefitted from APEC, as chair Indonesia invited leaders from the Pacific Islands economies to participate in the 2013 APEC Summit. This was in line with Indonesia’s regional diplomacy, which aspires to inclusive regionalism. At the global level, on one historic morning on May 30 last year on behalf of the co-chairs and members of the UN panel of eminent persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, President Yudhoyono presented the final report of the panel to the UN secretary-general and to the UN General Assembly. The report identified 12 goals of the post-2015 development agenda. In line with the commitment to use global diplomacy for combating poverty and achieving sustained prosperity, Indonesia was also advocating the development agenda at the St Petersburg G20 Summit, as well as at the Doha Development Agenda in Bali in December 2013. Yet, Indonesia’s diplomacy last year also had limitations, particularly evident in the Syrian conflict. The President recognized the limitation of power and influence with regard to the Syrian conflict, as explained in his statement to the press at the end of the G20 Summit in St Petersburg on Sept. 7 — which was reiterated in his recent book Selalu Ada Pilihan (There is Always a Choice). Yet, Indonesia remained active in galvanizing regional and global support for an immediate, peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict, reflecting the country’s middle way approach to an immediate and peaceful resolution of the conflict. That is also why Indonesia was invited by the UN secretary-general to participate in the recent Geneva II Conference on Syria. Apart from diplomacy, the country also used “soft power”, including development and technical assistance as well as scholarships and cultural cooperation. In November 2013, the President also initiated the World Culture Forum — intended as an annual forum for global dialogue on culture as a driver for peace and progress. The use of a military component as a foreign policy instrument was high in 2013, mainly within the framework of UN peace missions. Indonesia deployed more than 1,800 personnel in seven UN peace missions — the largest in Lebanon (UNIFIL) amounting to 1,288 personnel. Indonesia also deployed a sigma class corvette KRI Diponegoro-365 to secure Lebanese waters. At a doctrinal level, free and active, or bebas aktif, remained the main principles of Yudhoyono’s foreign policy while he continued to use the framework of “a million friends and zero enemies”. In the case of Syria, for example, the President proposed a middle way comprising the cessation of hostilities, the delivery of humanitarian assistance and an inclusive political process. He also diversified Indonesia’s cooperation and partnerships with countries not only from Asia and the Pacific but also from Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Americas. The year 2013 also posed a great challenge of coordination within the foreign policy establishment, notably with the President’s strong commitment to regionalize and internationalize the manifesto of sustainable growth with equity; particularly apparent when Indonesia was mainstreaming the manifesto into the post-2015 development agenda. It was a challenge to coordinate coherent steps involving not only the Foreign Ministry as the diplomatic engine but also monitoring and planning agencies such as the Presidential Working Unit for Supervision and Management of Development (UKP4) and the National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) as well as technical ministries such as the ministries of health, education, environment and forestry. Development in the foreign policy sector will always be critical in the future. ●

Africa in the 21 st century

Africa in the 21 st century Yayan GH Mulyana ;  An Assistant to Special Staff to the President for international relations

JAKARTA POST, 19 Februari 2013

It was a beautiful morning when I arrived at Roberts International Airport in Monrovia, Liberia, on Jan. 29. A young Liberian liaison officer named Mohammad kindly welcomed me and other delegates to the third meeting of the UN High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Mohammad was a smart and energetic young man. He represents Liberian youths who are currently working hard in order to be part of the making of a brighter future for Liberia.  A UN vehicle was driving all delegates from the airport to the city of Monrovia. Along the road to and in the city, billboards were standing, on which expressions such as “Ballots Not Bullets” and “Good Taxpayers are Nation Builders” were brashly written.  Those messages on the billboards reflect a new reality in Liberia that highlights the country’s active nation-building efforts and continued consolidation of peace and stability after many years of internal conflicts. To help ensure durable peace in the country, the UN maintains its peacebuilding mission in the country under the UNMIL.  Like Liberia, many countries in Africa such as Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone are arising from conflict and instability. Their priority is to lay a strong foundation for durable peace, social progress and sustained prosperity. International support is critical to the success of their post-conflict peacebuilding efforts. That is why, like in Liberia, the UN maintains its presence in Burundi, Central Africa Republic, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone and West Africa.  Africa is making notable progress in the early 21st century. It would be inaccurate to imagine Africa today as it was in the 1980s, which was marked by the great famine in Ethiopia that prompted Bob Geldof’s Live Aid concert.  According to a recent report of the African Development Bank Group, Africa has achieved growth rates of above 6 percent in the past 10 years. The continent is regarded as one of the fastest growing regions in the world.  Sub-Saharan countries such as Angola, Chad, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda and Mozambique have joined the club of the world’s fastest growing economies.  Angola’s annual average gross domestic product (GDP) growth between 2001 — 2010 reached 11.1 percent, and Rwanda’s reached 7.6 percent. In the past, both countries experienced prolonged devastating civil war.  Africa’s commitment to conflict resolution has been very strong. African leaders are well aware of the paramount importance of peace and stability for achieving social and economic progress.  In view of this, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia and members of the High-Level Panel from Africa consistently stress the significance of the interconnectedness between peace, security and the post-2015 development agenda.  Regional and sub-regional organizations in Africa such as the African Union (AU), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) play a critical role in creating a peaceful and stable Africa. African states are willing to take any necessary measures to restore peace and prevent gross violations of human rights in the future, including the choice of intervention into one country’s territory. Under its Constitutive Act, in particular Article 4, African states authorize the AU with the right to intervene in the territory of a member state in cases of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Under the same article, a member state also has the right to request such intervention. This bold adoption of such a controversial right reflects the resolute commitment of African countries to prevent the same mass atrocities from recurring in the future.  The AU has even gone one further step by including in the Union’s 2003 Protocol on Amendments to the Constitutive Act “a serious threat to legitimate order to restore peace and stability to the member state” as an additional circumstance under which an intervention can be legitimately exercised. Like other regions, despite the aforementioned progress, Africa continues to face various challenges. It remains a challenge for Africa to expand investments, generate middle-class growth, create jobs and alleviate poverty. Africa still needs to create high-value growth in order to attain a sustainable economy. The continent is also still pestered by developments that are undermining peace and stability. The recent example is the situation in Mali. While the situation in the country has been generally stabilized by the presence of French troops, creating durable peace in the country remains a daunting task.  Still, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued fights between the government and the March 23 Movement (M23) have made it difficult to create a strong foundation for durable peace in the country.  Despite this mixed picture of optimism and concerns, one cannot deny that Africa today is being transformed. This transformation opens new opportunities for global and inter-regional partnerships.  The UN continues to be a critical partner of Africa in attaining peace and stability as well as social and economic progress. Since 1948, there have been more than 40 UN peace missions in Africa.  Like in the past, Asia can support Africa in seizing the opportunities offered by the 21st century. Both can collaborate to serve as engines of global growth.  In response to my question on what Africa expects from Asia, Remi Sogunro, advisor to President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, said that Asia could be a better partner of Africa, compared to other regions. He believed that Asia could understand Africa better because both continents shared past experiences of struggle against colonialism and of tackling poverty.  In fact, Asia-Africa cooperation dates back to the 1955 Bandung Conference. Its cooperation was made deeper by the 2005 New Asian-African Strategic Partnership (NAASP). With Asia and Africa making progress, there are now more reasons for both continents to build greater collaboration under such a partnership.  For its part, Indonesia attaches particular importance to Africa. Contacts between the archipelagic nation and Africa had occurred far before the Bandung Conference.  Indonesia’s commitment to deeper cooperation with Africa has been reaffirmed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during his recent visit to Liberia and Nigeria.  With new developments on the continent as described above, and considering Indonesia’s new posture in international relations — as a regional power, an emerging economy, and a growth market, there are new opportunities in the 21st century for Indonesia to engage with Africa in a strategic way.  Technical cooperation remains an essential instrument of Indonesia’s foreign policy toward Africa. But we can go beyond this kind of foreign policy instrument. The NAASP Plan provides a road map for Indonesia’s engagement with Africa with a variety of instruments and avenues. ●

Local goverments and Indonesian foreign policy

Local goverments and Indonesian foreign policy

Yayan GH Mulyana, AN ASSISTANT TO SPECIAL STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT

FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 14 Desember 2011

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono issued a directive in a Cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, asking, among other things, for governors to fully understand Indonesia’s standpoint regarding various international issues. This directive is very timely considering the increase in local government interest in conducting relations with foreign entities or governments.

While the authority for the formulation, making and implementation of foreign policy rests with the central government, local governments share some authority with the national government in conducting foreign relations, especially for economic and development purposes. Law No. 32/2004 on Regional Government, which replaced Law No. 22/1999 on Regional Government, explicitly mentions the authority of a region to conduct mutually beneficial cooperation with institutions or agencies abroad relating to areas
under its authority (Article 88).

Article 41 of Law No. 32 /2004 stipulates that with the approval of the regional legislative council, a local government can propose and implement an international cooperation plan. In explanation of this article, “international cooperation” refers to regional cooperation with foreign parties, including twin or sister city cooperation, technical cooperation including humanitarian aid, cooperation on forwarding loans or grants, equity participation and joint cooperation in accordance with statutory regulations.

It is further stated that regional governments can accept foreign grants and can borrow foreign loans through the Ministry of Finance (Article 170).

In terms of foreign affairs relating to the authority of autonomous regions — as a solution to a conflict such as the Åland Islands in Finland, as recognition of special privileges to ethnic minorities such as in the Chinese provinces of Guangxi, Nei Mongol, Ningxia, Xinjiang and Xizang, or as a result of a political process such as in Indonesia — economic and development cooperation is the most common dimension of such authority.

Based on existing practices, there are at least four patterns of interaction between local governments and their national governments in the conduct of foreign affairs.

First is a complementary pattern. In this pattern, the implementation of the local government’s authority in foreign affairs is in harmony with the central government’s foreign policy.

For example, in 1998, when the US imposed economic sanctions against Myanmar, the City Council of Los Angeles, California, issued an ordinance prohibiting the local government of Los Angeles executing contracts with companies that had investments or foreign relations activities with Myanmar.

Second is a complicating pattern. There have been cases where local governments in the US took legal and administrative measures that complicated US foreign policy. For example, in 2000, the state of California issued the Angelides’ guidelines that prohibited financial institutions in California investing in countries like Turkey and Egypt, which were US allies, as well as with China despite its special ties with the US. The guidelines placed the US in a difficult position in relation to its allies.

Third is a dissociating pattern. The central government will dissociate itself from the policy taken by autonomous local governments. For example, the Finnish government was not able to do anything when the European Commission demanded through the European Court that Finland abolish the “Snus Law” (law on chewing tobacco), which was applicable in the Autonomous Region of the Åland Islands.

The Finnish Government argued that health problems (including tobacco use) were within the full authority of the Autonomous Region of Åland Islands and chewing tobacco was an important commodity for the economy of the Åland Islands.

Fourth, there is a conflicting pattern. This pattern is visible when measures or policies taken by local governments conflict with the policies of national governments. In Indonesia, for example, it was once noticed that many local governments had expressed strong interest in advancing cooperation with Taiwan, which ran counter to Indonesia’s One China policy. Some had even proposed the foundation of a trade office in Taiwan.

Regional autonomy in Indonesia emerged from historical necessities and it is something that should not be undone. Yet, it is essential to ensure that local governments’ activism in foreign relations is pursued in the corridor of their limited authority and, in particular, on Law No. 37/1999 on Foreign Relations. It is important that local governments know their limits and respect and follow the policies set by the national government.

As local governments do not always have resources to support their foreign affairs activities, the central government could help equip local governments with such capacity, including information on various regulations and cooperation opportunities.

Local governments’ limited authority in foreign relations could also be empowered through institutional measures. The government of the state of California, for instance, formed the International Business Relations Program (IBRP) to support its foreign trade relations.

Local governments could also promote innovation. The Xinjiang Local Government, for example, annually holds the Xinjiang Urumqi Foreign Economic Relations & Trade Fair (Urumqi Fair), which has become the largest opportunity for trade transactions with Central Asia, Russia and Western China as target markets. Networking for local governments is important for exchanging best practices, for example through the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA) and the Asia-Pacific Cities Summit.●