For Indonesia, Maintaining Zero Enemies is Harder Than You Think
International Relations has not been very kind to Indonesia lately.
This article, written by no less than my professor (and my thesis advisor) highlights one of the latest problem to Indonesia’s ‘a million friends, zero enemies’ foreign policy. To add more insult, the problem happens to one of Indonesia’s closest friends: Singapore. In many respects, both countries have excellent relations, not to measure both countries’ status as founding members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a fact well-known to many.
However, this problem regarding the naming of a battleship with a number of a Marine pair, getting national hero status in Indonesia but condemned to death in Singapore, creates a diplomatic spark that is probably not unexpected but not necessarily well-understood either.
I think Mr. Jemadu has explained in his article sufficiently regarding the historical background to this problem, especially noting the problem with Sukarno’s past foreign policy choices. While I fully agree with his point that this spat needs to be done with, I do believe that it is more than a mere historical program. If we to believe that both countries’ historical relations as founding members of ASEAN should have paved a better way for the two countries to interact, than historical problems will not fully settle the question.
Therefore, what seems to be the problem?
It is a classical problem that “your terrorist is my hero.” This is exactly the reason why countries have not managed to find a well-settled definition on what is “terrorism.” It is due to the fact that often what people calls “terrorist” is called “freedom fighter” or even “hero” by others.
The marine pair in this case will be a good example. The bombing of the MacDonald House in 1965 will be called an act of terror in today’s standard, and I believe no less 50 years ago. It is an act of terror back in 1965, and today. Regardless of what the reason is (including considering the Konfrontasi background), it is an act of terror.
And in a sense, I can fully understand Singapore’s annoyance to this problem. To a certain extent, I believe it is almost a hard slap on the face as what the eavesdropping case does to Indonesia. It is simply embarrassing, and yes, considering the good relations between the countries, annoyance may injure for the longest time.
I guess it is easier to avoid controversy, and I believe dropping this controversial name—not necessarily because it is bad, but just because the fact that it is problematic for some—is much easier than doing numerous foreign policy maneuver that looks immature. Now consider this: What if one day the United States names its battleship USS Allen Pope? Of course this is hypothetical and it is most probably more assuring to say that you will not be hit by a lightning bolt than the probability of the United States naming one of its military arsenals with Allen Pope, but if that hypothetical scenario happens, clearly Indonesia will be pissed, right?
Of course, the counterargument is always the thing with sovereignty. Indeed, even naming a battleship is a sovereign right of a state. Yet as no man is an island, no state stands on its own. I don’t see any harm by avoiding controversy and instead naming the battleship using a less controversial name, right?
Also with Australia. A few days ago, I attended this discussion with former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, John Anderson. He was a kind and nice person, and he believed that what happened between Indonesia and Australia is unnecessary, while of course recognizing that both countries’ relations had often marred with misconceptions and misunderstandings. Well, actually, not only due to the eavesdropping controversy. Lately, Australia has been pushing hard to prevent asylum seekers from entering Australia—so much so that it is believed that the Australian Navy has trespassed to Indonesia’s territory.
I don’t believe Australia should be expected to apologise for reasonable intelligence-gathering activities. — Tony Abbott, Australian PM
Good friends, you say? Probably, if not due to this bellicose mentality. Now, Indonesia is deploying battleships and preparing airplanes, of which “Australia is reachable from there.” This shows, if you think today’s international relations is filled with friendliness, peace, avoidance of conflict: think again.
When my best friend Tony Abbott made several statements before the Australian parliament suggesting the case was normal and refused to apologise, I could no longer stay silent. — Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesian President
These examples show how it is harder than expected for Indonesia to maintain its “one million friends, zero enemies” foreign policy, no matter how good it sounds. Indeed, Indonesia has always had this one particular “not a friend, not an enemy because we believe it does not exist” (a quote from this government official that I got), which is Israel. But Australia and Singapore are practically the closest neighbors to Indonesia as you can get, and to have spats with your closest neighbors—literally both shoulders almost shrug each other—you will realize that things are not going so well.
Indonesia has been strangely proud in this tension, and it is rather painful to see, considering Indonesia’s foreign policy has been very successful in recent years to maintain good relations with practically anyone. Even if the problem comes from the neighbors, it may be difficult for Indonesia to play the peacemaker.
See, for Indonesia, it is harder than we all think to maintain a million friends and zero enemies.
* Note: Allen Lawrence Pope is an American pilot, apprehended in 1959 within the Indonesian territory and accused of supporting the PRRI/PERMESTA rebellion. Sentenced to death, he was released in 1962.
