Asia Rising Indonesia's Foreign Policy Dr Welcome to Asia Rising, the podcast of La Trobe Asia where we discuss the news, views and general happenings of Asian states and societies. It's been more than two years since Joko Widodo or more popularly known as Jokowi, was elected Indonesian President. While his election occurred on a wave of high hopes and high expectations, little was known at the time about how the new President would approach Indonesia's international affairs. My name is and I'm joined here today by Doctor E Fitriani, Head of the International Relations Department at Universitas Indonesia to discuss Indonesia's approach to Foreign Policy under the Jokowi administration. Thank you for joining me today Dr My pleasure, good morning. What are the key characteristics in your opinion of Jokowi's approach to Foreign Policy? President Jokowi's approach to Foreign Policy has several characteristics that are distinct from his predecessor. The first I could see is his emphasis on doing what is called 'Pro-people Foreign Policy'. Meaning that any efforts in Foreign policies be directed to help what people need to enhance the economy development of Indonesia, to fulfil people's needs for some International action. For example, helping Indonesian citizen who have problems abroad, so that kind of Foreign Policy he would like to have. That's why during his presidency, we have seen more efforts by Ministers of Foreign Affairs to do more to help Indonesians who have some later problems in foreign countries. That is the first characteristic. Second characteristic is, because of the focus on direct impact on the people, he seems to put Indonesian Foreign Policy in a shortened perspective, meaning that he wants immediate result of that action: while we know that in Foreign Policy, not all action can yield result immediately. Sometimes we have to nurture for several years, even maybe several generations, because the relations between countries needs trust and trust building is time. But this is what has been done the last two years. I hope this is only a short-term phenomenon because we should also think about a long term impact of Foreign Policy rather than only short-term. The third characteristic is his emphasis also more on nationalism, and not really nationalism in that sense, but meaning we have to guard sovereignty in Indonesia more. It means that he puts more emphasis on border issues to try to develop and strengthen Indonesian border, we have very difficult and long maritime borders and land borders with ten countries around. Not all of them have been settled so it is one of his priorities. And the last one is his determination is quite strong. It's quite different with his predecessor in this instance, Foreign Policy under President Jokowi looks much more firm. So you mentioned that Jokowi's leadership is quite different from his predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono - SBY was known as a bit of an International Statesman, he very much concerned with status and image. In what ways is Jokowi different?
Those two leaders are different in their personality. Joko Widodo is a definite person being a businessman before, so he is used to several characteristic like trouble shooter and so he would put the emphasis on how to solve the problem rather than just to put it under the carpet. And then he would like to do something quick. He is also the one who tried to respond what should be done rather than just delay it for many years and lastly I have to also emphasise that he is very much the one who emphasises on substance rather than image, rather than covers. So for him it is important to do what Indonesian people need and also to do what the country needs rather than only create a good image abroad but maybe he didn't really bring impact to the people. I think there were projections when Jokowi first became President that he would be focussed a lot more on domestic politics and would potentially take a much more nationalist stance in viewing foreign policy. Do you think that those projections have come true? Well we have to put it in a broader perspective because all the country's Foreign Policy is to fulfil the national interest, like in Indonesia and also in Australia. So he seems to focus on domestic actually to strengthen the economy because there are a lot of problems in the economy. For me he also understands that foreign policy starts at home. If you're economic development at home is in disarray, who will trust you as a competent international actor. So you have to start in your back yard, domestic performance is the backdrop of foreign policy in any country. It's true in Australia, its true also in Indonesia now. What are the key threats and challenges that Indonesian's Foreign Policy Elites perceive in contemporary international relations, particularly within the Asia Pacific Region where we see a shifting balance of power and the rise of China? Yes, it's quite difficult now and I think our country and the region are first quite a dilemma considering what's happening in our region. In one side we depend very much on China as an economic partner (a very important economic partner) but we also know that China has been very aggressive in the South China Sea and in that sense we need another partner to help us maintain the stability and here we also have the United States and this is a very different situation. For me I think this is one of the challenges for Indonesia and also for Australia, yeah? Yes definitely, that's one of the key challenges for Australia. This is the area that Indonesia and Australia actually can make a co-operation. Talking about shifting power balance within the international arena, discussion about whether or not Indonesia is itself an emerging power or whether it has the political and economic capabilities or capacity to become a great power in international relations. What's your view?
Well I think Indonesia has a lot to do if it would like to be a competent player in international relations, but a priority for Indonesia now is to get our economic and politics and security aspect done well. So we have to strengthen our economic performance, economic development and also continue democratisation in Indonesia so we have a strong and stable political system, but also we have to maintain sufficient or minimum force to defend the country. At the moment Indonesia does not have the capacity to do that because of, not only the difficult territory that we have to defend, our borders, but also we don't have sufficient navy and also air force equipment because of the limitations of the budget. This is what we would like to do by 2045 when Indonesia is to celebrate our first 100 years, at least we have become a nation that can defend its own and also can be on itself without having to depend on other countries. So actually this is the aspiration of Indonesia, not very much to be a big power or aggressive, we focus more on the inside, how to be on our own and to not depend on other countries. That's an interesting observation because since Independence, Indonesia has promoted a vision of foreign policy that is free and active where sovereignty is viewed in terms of independence and non-intervention and this suggests a large degree of consistency in foreign policy. So I guess my question is, how much does leadership and the individual characteristics of a particular leader like Jokowi actually matter for the essentials of Indonesian Foreign Policy? Very, very good observation of the nature of foreign policy. Yes I think leadership with Jokowi can carried out this mission, this value quite consistently but not all of them. Previous presidents maybe have more international connections, have international tendency so for him maybe sovereignty cannot be limited as a non-intervention like that. We are living in the globalisation era where intervention can be transferred or perceived differently, so intervention in what way? For Indonesia we still would like to see that we are free from any intervention, not only physical but also non-physical including the promotion of the norms or the values that we think is not suitable with our culture and our local value. So as long as it is good for our country like democracy, I think we can adopt it and it has done quite well in Indonesia. But other things like liberal countries or Western countries try to push forward for the human rights, this we have to discuss. What kind of human rights, because what is perceived as normal human rights in Western culture maybe not similar with the Indonesian ones, so this is the area that Indonesia has to be very careful otherwise we see ourselves being intervened by other countries. I mean that it's quite interesting talking about the pressure that countries have sought to apply to Indonesia on particular issues. One being the use of the death penalty and that brings us around to Australia and Indonesia's relationship which has experienced a number of scandals and crisis over the past five years. I can think of the Australian ban on live cattle exports, allegations of spying, the on-going tensions over asylum seekers and of course the Bali Nine executions. And both Jokowi and former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott were accused of looking at international relations using a domestic political lens which seems to have contributed to a kind of
serious deterioration of the relationship from about 2013 to 2015 when Malcolm Turnbull became Australia's Prime Minister. So how do you see Jokowi's attitude towards Australia and how has his leadership impacted upon Australia and Indonesia's bi-lateral relationship? Well, as I mentioned before, Jokowi's priority is economic development in Indonesia in addition to strengthening or guarding our sovereignty, so for him it is important to find an international system that can support this mission. In this aspect Australia under Prime Minister Tony Abbott doesn't seem to fit in this category so this is why I think these two leaders sometime we cannot work with what we actually are looking for. So in that case the co-operation didn't develop that much. But on the other side the negative aspect like you mentioned developed so obviously like live cattle issue etc. And Jokowi took a very firm stand in his decision as to the exclusion of two of the drugs traffickers from Australia, not because he is anti-human rights; for me come back to his personality, he just wanted the work done and these exclusions should have been done several years before that during Yudhoyono's Presidency but he just didn't do it, he delayed so now Jokowi had to do it. I think he did what he has to do, the reaction from Australia was I think, not helpful. Australia used megaphone diplomacy which is not suitable at all Indonesia and any Asian country. Megaphone Diplomacy doesn't work, in Asia face saving diplomacy is important - you humiliate people if you do something in public like that. So rather than bring positive impact that you expect too, actually it wasn't the situation. So no-one responded positively to this kind of diplomacy. This is what Prime Minister Tony Abbott had done. The more Australia push Indonesia at that time, the more President Jokowi firm in his decision. And that is partly linked to the ways that Jokowi responds to his domestic? Yeah to some extent, that is also because he was supported. For Australia this is a human rights issue yeah? But for Indonesia no. This is how we handle the criminal who bring drug to our country, not only that, we also have fixed legal decision, so we just do what we have to do. This is the law that is adopted, capital punishment, so he has to do what he has to do. Indonesian people will see it as an intervention to Indonesian Law and Indonesian Sovereignty from Australia because it has pushed Indonesia to a direction that is not in our legal system. If we have to delay, this means we treat Australians differently. If we have to delay this Australian one, how about others? If we continue excluding them then it will be a discrimination issue, so we are then also accused of being discriminating. So that's why the push, the pressure from Prime Minister Abbott has been seen as an intervention to International Law. It seems that there are particular issues that Australia and Indonesia can effectively co-operate on when they're interests align, for example perhaps in the area of counter-terrorism after September 11 and after the Bali bombings. But there are others where the interests seem so divergent that co-operation seems to be impossible. What do you see as being the kinds of central challenges facing Australia and
Indonesia's bi-lateral relationship? I think the two countries have a lot of potential to co-operate together but sometimes there are some fundamental challenges in the relations. We are very different in terms of culture and values and because of this it creates also differences of how to see issues, how to see interest, how to see phenomena. To some extent maybe we can share opinions like as you mentioned counter-terrorism was a challenge for us and I can also mention about the need for sustainable development, we share that interest. But others like human rights especially and how to treat live cattle issue is seen as a problem based on Australian values the norms that you use you will see it from your perspective, and we see it from our perspective and this has created lots of challenges. So different cultures have created different point of view and then created the problem. So this is what I think is the basic challenge of the two countries. But I would like to say that the difference of culture doesn t mean that we cannot co-operate, what we need is to respect each other. You know our standpoint, we know your standpoint, why don't we respect each other. Don't push Australia to use Indonesian perspective. Don't push Indonesia to use Australian perspective. We just respect each other's perspective and then we try to solve the problem together. Communication and further interaction is very important in this case. Finally, both states are pursuing foreign policy based on this idea of economic diplomacy. Under the Turnbull Government there's been these renewed efforts to engage Indonesia in a Free Trade Agreement. So are you optimistic about the potential of Australia and Indonesia to form greater economic and trade relations moving into the future? We have had this ASEAN Australia and New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, it's already concluded, so actually Indonesia as part of ASEAN it is already there, but what we would like to make even deeper than that is bi-lateral agreement between Indonesia and Australia in economic co-operation. So now they are negotiating our Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement CEPAC and it's expected to conclude in 18 months, I think that's quite ambitious, but take into consideration, this draft actually came into consideration in 2013. It was post-phoned because of our very difficult political circumstances, hopefully there is a more conducive atmosphere between the two countries to push for economic co-operation. But it doesn't mean we will automatically go well, because Australia has an interest Indonesia has an interest - and if people talk about money they are very firm. But we have to realise that we both have potential and we can have a win-win situation, but there is also another hurdle, we have different economic levels. So from colleagues that are doing this negotiation have been told that Australia very much emphasis are more on the surface, while Indonesia still look in terms of commodities so this is the difference in focus and because of different economic development level can create problems. So this is why the two countries need to talk and communicate more so they can accommodate each other's needs. If we target for that, I'm sure we can cut some improvement in the relations. Thank you for talking with us today.
My pleasure, thank you very much. You've been listening to Asia Rising, a podcast of La Trobe Asia. If you like this podcast you can subscribe to Asia Rising on itunes or SoundCloud and while you're there leave a rating and a review to help us spread the word. Thanks for listening.