November 7, 2024
JAKARTA – Under President Prabowo Subianto, Indonesia appears poised to enter a new phase of international engagement. A shift in the country’s international approach is anticipated, with many believing that Indonesia will adopt a more proactive stance and less business-oriented nature in its foreign policy.
In the realm of international relations, it is imperative for Indonesia to ensure that its foreign and defense policies mutually reinforce each other. The government can no longer afford to maintain a discordant position on significant global events, hence a strong correlation between foreign and defense establishments is essential.
Divergent perspectives within these sectors have rendered Indonesia’s international position increasingly awkward.
Prabowo’s proposal in 2023 at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict caught Indonesian diplomats by surprise, highlighting the differing viewpoints between the diplomatic and defense policy circles.
At that time, as defense minister, Prabowo proposed a five-point initiative to end the Ukraine war, which included a ceasefire, the establishment of a demilitarized buffer zone and a referendum under the United Nations auspices in the disputed territories. Such a proposal ran counter to the UN, to which Indonesia officially subscribes, that Moscow should withdraw its military forces unconditionally.
Scholars, especially from the West, have underscored the importance of a robust linkage between foreign and defense policies. In his seminal work, Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger posits that the integration of foreign and defense policies reflects a cohesive strategy to advance national interests. As a proponent of realism, he emphasizes that military strength is critical to underpinning diplomatic endeavors.
Barry Buzan, a noted scholar in security studies, argues in People, States, and Fear that issues traditionally regarded as foreign policy matters can evolve into security concerns, thereby influencing defense policy decisions.
In a more contemporary examination, Ann-Marie Slaughter, in her 2004 book A New World Order, elucidates the interconnectedness of global issues and the necessity for integrated approaches to foreign and defense policies, emphasizing the role of non-state actors and transnational challenges.
As President Prabowo endeavors to elevate Indonesia’s global stature, the necessity for a more coherent connection between foreign and defense policy has become increasingly pressing.
The alignment of foreign and defense policies could commence with a critical review of the 1999 Foreign Relations Law and the 2002 National Defense Law. These statutes currently lack clarity regarding information confidentiality related to defense, security and foreign relations.
Synchronizing these laws with the 2008 Law on Public Information, for that matter, is essential. Additionally, these laws should delineate the strategic objectives of foreign policy, one of which is humanitarian diplomacy.
In the Foreign Relations Law, the word kemanusiaan (humanity) only appears once, in the explanatory section.
Indonesia’s recent initiative to advocate humanitarian diplomacy by dispatching a floating military hospital to help the victims of Israeli’s war in Gaza exemplifies how legislative frameworks can articulate the nation’s strategic goals in humanitarian advocacy.
While this aligns with constitutional principles, such diplomatic actions are bolstered by the political will of Prabowo, a former Army general, when serving as defense minister in the previous administration, and the deployment of military resources.
Second, Indonesia faces immediate security challenges, such as tension in the South China Sea, separatism and supply chain disruptions caused by conflicts in several parts of the world, alongside emergent threats such as cyber warfare, all of which are closely linked to the country’s diplomatic efforts.
The complexity of the security environment in which Indonesia operates necessitates the establishment of high-level, regular channels of coordination between foreign and defense establishments. Ultimately, this collaboration should yield a consensus on Indonesia’s primary and secondary defense and security challenges, as well as those that can be addressed through foreign policy initiatives.
Such clarity would aid policymakers in establishing a renewed or reinforced concentric circle of foreign policy priorities.
Finally, as Indonesia’s military seeks modernization, missions abroad must be equipped with business negotiation skills and knowledge of the types of defense equipment the nation aims to procure. This approach can optimize resource allocation by ensuring that military resources are directed in ways that support diplomatic objectives.
Conversely, enhancing the capacities of diplomats in this regard would be advantageous for those stationed in countries from which Indonesia is eager to acquire modern military assets. Consistent with Kissinger’s earlier assertions, this dual enhancement can improve the efficacy and efficiency of both defense and foreign policy objectives.
In conclusion, narrowing the divide within the foreign and defense policy establishment will ultimately serve the President’s aspirations as an individual deeply committed to international and global affairs.
Guided by a non-aligned, free and active approach, the alignment of foreign and defense policies will enable Indonesia to respond more effectively to the complexities of contemporary global challenges, ensuring that its actions are coordinated, credible and adaptive.