DOMESTIC DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY MAKING IN POST-

BY

EVA MUSHOFFA

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (Political Sciences)

Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences International Islamic University Malaysia

JULY 2009 ABSTRACT

This study investigates domestic sources of Indonesia’s foreign policy under three democratically elected presidents: Abdurrahman Wahid (1999-2001), Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001-2004) and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004-2009). The study uses documentary analytical method of data collection. The study suggests that post- Suharto administrations promoted preservation of Indonesia’s territorial integrity and attempted to get financial assistance needed for development of the country. The study has also found out that foreign policy making has become an object of intense debate between the executive, the presidential council, the bureaucracy, the parliament and the public at large. Hence, the traditional role of the military in foreign policy making has declined. However, the degree of influence of these sources of foreign policy is dependent on the nature of the issue and the personalities heading these institutions. The study, among others, recommends that the democratization of Indonesian society should continue unabated as Indonesian democracy has yet to become mature.

ii ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ

ﺪﻑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻭﻧﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ ﺗﻔﻌﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﲢﺖ ﻗﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺭﺅﺳﺎﺀ ﰎ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻢ: ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ (1999 -2001) ﻭﻣﻴﻐﺎﻭﺍﰐ ﺳﻮﻛﺮﻧﻮ ﺑﻮﺗﺮﻱ (2001 -2004)، ﻭﺳﻮﺳﻴﻠﻮ ﺑﺎﻣﺒﺎﻧﺞ ﻳﻮﺩﻭﻳﻮﻧﻮ (2004 -2009). ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﺎﺋﻘﻲ ﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ. ﻭﻗﺪ ﺧﻠﺼﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻭﻧﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺳﻮﻫﺮﺗﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺷﺠﻌﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲪﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻋﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﺑﺈﻧﺪﻭﻧﻴﺴﻴﺎ. ﻭﺍﻛﺘﺸﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﳏ ﻮ ﺭ ﺍ ﻫ ﺘ ﻤ ﺎ ﻡﹴ ﺟ ﺎ ﺩّ ﺑﲔ ﻛ ﻞﹴّ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﺔ، ﻭﳎﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﺎﺳﺔ، ﻭﺍﻟﺒﲑﻭﻗﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ، ﻭﺍﻟﱪﳌﺎﻥ، ﻭﺍﳉﻤﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻭﻧﻴﺴﻲ ﻋ ﻤ ﻮ ﻣ ﺎﹰ. ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ، ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻘﻠﹼﺺ، ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ، ﻓﺈﻥ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺪﻯ ﻫﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ. ﻭﺃﻭﺻﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﺄﳘﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺪﻭﻧﻴﺴﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺪﻭﻧﻴﺴﻴﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻨﻀﺞ ﺑﻌﺪ.

iii

APPROVAL PAGE

I certify that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (Political Sciences)

...... Wahabuddin Ra’ees Supervisor

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (Political Sciences)

...... Ishtiaq Hossain Examiner

This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Psychology and is accepted as a partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (Political Sciences)

...... Wahabuddin Ra’ees Head, Department of Political Sciences

This dissertation was submitted to the Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences and is accepted as a partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (Political Sciences)

...... Badri Najib bin Zubir Dean, Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge & Human Sciences

iv DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.

Eva Mushoffa

Signature …………………………. Date….……………………..

v

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

Copyright © 2009 by Eva Mushoffa. All rights reserved.

THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE CHARACTERS IN THOMAS HARDY’S FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD, THE RETURN OF THE NATIVE, THE MAYOR OF CASTERBRIDGE AND TESS OF THE D’URBERVILLES

No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as provided below.

1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may only be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.

2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.

3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieval system and supply copies of this unpublishe d research if requested by other universities and research libraries.

Affirmed by Eva Mushoffa

……………………………. …………………. Signature Date

vi

I humbly dedicate this thesis to

My late Aba; Allah Yarham Aminuddin Muchtar, your invaluable guidance and lessons will lead my life forever May Allah (SWT) bless and reward you with His Firdaus

My wonderful Umi, Maimanah, Who has always been there with sincere love, affection and compassion in my entire life

My beloved husband, Mohamad Avicenna and my starring boy, Ghasta Ijlal Haque. Your support and delicate love have been sources of endless inspirations

vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillah and thanks to my Creator the Almighty Allah (S.W.T.) for the strength, patience and endurance bestowed upon me to complete this research. Peace and blessings be upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.S), his family and his companions. I would like to express my profound gratitudes to my advisor and supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wahabuddin Ra’ees, Head Department of Political Science, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), for his excellent guidance and assistance in completing this research. Without his help and encouragement, the work would not have been completed. I also owe much gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ishtiaq Hossain, for being an excellent reader of my thesis and for his precious comments on this thesis. I extend my heartfelt appreciation to all my lecturers in the Department of Political Science: Prof. Dr. Abdul Rashid Moten, Prof. Dr. El-Fatih Abdullahi Abdul Al-Salam, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Garooth Eissa Sulaiman, and Dr. Danial Yusof. I wish I can apply all knowledge they have taught me for the betterment of the ummah. I owe my sincere gratitudes to all those who assisted me, either directly or indirectly during the course of my study at IIUM. Many thanks to my dear friends Norhaslinda, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Political Science, IIUM, Eka, Ainun, Winda, Caya, Hala Azizah, Kanegi, Ayu, Inggrid, Dewi, Ustd. Muntaha and family for their support, sharing of ideas, encouragements and prayers. I am also deeply indebted to Sis. Kaosar Banu Roppun and Sis. Bilkis Akhter for their true friendship and nice time we shared. Most of all, I owe the most sincere gratitude to my aba, late Aminuddin Muchtar, umi, Maimanah, husband, Mohamad Avicenna, son, Ghasta Ijlal Haque, dearest brothers, Danial, Nawwal and Afaf, sisters, Dr. Fakhrunnisa and Hana, fatherly uncles Ammu Uyoh and Ammu Rozi, motherly aunties, Ci Nane and Amma Ilah. I am also thankful to my father in law, Prof. Dr. Salman Harun and mother in law, Ibu Sukarni, all my in laws especially Atqa. Thanks for your prayers, love, care and endless support. May Allah (S.W.T) give them strength to continue serving the ummah. Jazakumullah Khairan Katsiran.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... ii Abstract in Arabic ...... iii Approval Page ...... iv Declaration Page ...... v Copyright Page ...... vi Dedication ...... vii Acknowledgements ...... viii List of Figures ...... xi List of Abbreviations ...... x

CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM, JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES, LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 3 Problem Justification ...... 4 Research Objective ...... 5 Literature Review ...... 5 General Studies on Indonesia’s Foreign Policy ...... 5 Literature on Factors of Indonesia’s Foreign Policy ...... 10 Theoretical Framework ...... 14 Foreign Policy: A Conceptual Analysis ...... 15 Domestic Determinants of Foreign Policy ...... 17 Democratization and Foreign Policy Making ...... 25 Method of Data Collection ...... 30 Chapters Outline ...... 31

CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL PRACTICES OF INDONESIA’S FOREIGN POLICY FORMULATION BEFORE 1998 REFORM ...... 32 Introduction ...... 32 Basic Principles of Indonesia’s Foreign Policy ...... 32 Indonesia’s Post-Independence Foreign Policy ...... 36 Foreign Policy Making under President ...... 37 Foreign Policy Making under President Suharto ...... 45 Conclusion ...... 54

CHAPTER THREE: DEMOCRATIZATION OF INDONESIA ...... 57 Introduction ...... 57 Politics in pre-1998 Reformasi ...... 57 Political Crisis ...... 58 Socio-Economic Crisis ...... 65

ix Democratization since 1998 ...... 68 1945 Constitutional Amendments ...... 69 Multiparty System vis-a-vis Presidential System ...... 76 Conclusion ...... 79

CHAPTER FOUR: DOMESTIC SOURCES OF FOREIGN POLICY OF POST- SUHARTO GOVERNMENT ...... 81 Introduction ...... 81 The Reform of Foreign Policy Making ...... 81 New Approaches in Foreign Policy Making ...... 81 The Parliamentary Power over Foreign Policy ...... 83 The Reform of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ...... 84 Sources of Foreign Policy Making ...... 89 The President or Chief of Executive ...... 89 The Presidential Staff and Adviser ...... 95 The Bureaucracy ...... 99 The Legislature ...... 108 Public Opinion ...... 111 Conclusion ...... 116

CHAPTER FIVE: FOREIGN POLICY OF POST-SUHARTO GOVERNMENTS ...... 119 Introduction ...... 119 Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Goals during the Reformasi Era...... 119 Indonesia’s Foreign Policy in the Post-Suharto Era ...... 121 Indonesia’s Foreign Policy under President Abdurrahman Wahid (1999-2001) ...... 122 Indonesia’s Foreign Policy under President Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001-2004) ...... 125 Indonesia’s Foreign Policy under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (2004-2009) ...... 127 Conclusion ...... 131

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 133

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 141

x LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page No.

1.1 Foreign policy sources, constraints and opportunities 23 3.1 Parallel structure of civilian bureaucracy and army territorial command 59 3.2 State institutions of Indonesia before amendments to the 1945 Constitution 73 3.3 State institutions of Indonesia after amendments to the 1945 Constitution 73 3.4 The role of State institutions after the amendment of 1945 Constitution 74 3.5 Parties’ power configuration 1999 & 2004 (Popular Votes) 77 4.1 Organizational structure of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia 87

xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

APEC the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ARF ASEAN Regional Forum ASEAN the Association of South East Asian Nations BAKIN Badan Koordinasi Intelejen Negara (National Intellegence Coordinating Body) BIAS Badan Intelejen Strategis (Intelligence and Strategic Agency) CGI the Consultative Group on Indonesia CIA Central Intelligence Agency COHA the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement DDI Dewan Dakwah Indonesia (Indonesia’s Muslim Preachers) DPD Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (the Council of Regional Representative) DPR Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (People’s Representative Assembly) FPI Front Pembela Islam (Islamic Defender Front) GAM Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (Free Aceh Movement) HTI Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia IAEA the International Atomic Energy Agency ICMI Ikatan Cendekiawan Muslim Indonesia (the Indonesian Moslem Intellectual Association) IGGI the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia IMF the International Monetary Fund INEO the International New Economic Order INTERFET the International Force in East Timor IPU Inter-Parliamentary Union JI Jemaah Islamiyah KAMMI Kesatuan Aksi Mahasiswa Muslim Indonesia (the Muslim Student Action Front) KISDI Komite Indonesia untuk Solidaritas Dunia Islam (the Committee for Solidarity of the Islamic World) KKN Korupsi, Kolusi, Nepotisme (Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism) KNIP Komite Nasional Indonesia Pusat (the Central Indonesian National Committee) KODAM Komando Daerah Militer (Regional Military Command) KOPKAMTIB Komando Operasi Pemulihan Keamanan dan Ketertiban (Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order) KOSTRAD Komando Strategis Angkatan Darat (Army Strategic Command) KPP HAM Timtim Komisi Penyelidik Pelanggaran Hak Azasi Manusia Timtim, (Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights Violations in East Timor) Laksus Pelaksana Khusus (Special Implementer)

xii Lemhanas Lembaga Pertahanan Nasional (Institute of Defence and Security) MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MoU Memorandum of Understanding MPR Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (People’s Consultative Assembly) MUI Majelis Ulama Indonesia (the Council of Ulama) NASAKOM Nasionalis-Agama-Komunis (Nationalist-Religious- Communist) NEFOS New Emerging Forces NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NU the Nahdlatul Ulama (Revival of Religious Scholar) OIC the Organization of Islamic Conference OLDEFOS Old Established Forces OPSUS Operasi Khusus (Special Operation) PAN Partai Amanat National (National Mandate Party) PBB Partai Bulan Bintang (Moon Star Party) PBR Partai Bulan Reformasi (Moon Reformed Party) PD Partai Demokrat (Democrate Party) PDI Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (Indonesian Democratic Party) PDI-P Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (Struggle-Indonesian Democratic Party) PKB Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (National Awakening Party) PKI Partai Komunis Indonesia (the Indonesian Communist Party) PKPI Partai Kesatuan dan Persatuan Indonesia (National and United Party of Indonesia) PKS Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (Prosperous Justice Party) PNG Papua New Guinea PPP Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (United Development Party) PRC the People’s Republic of China SESKOAD Sekolah Staf Komando Angkatan Darat (the Army Staff and Command College) Set-Neg Sekertariat Negara (State Secretariat) TNI Tentara Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Army) UN the United Nations UNCAC the United Nations Convention Against Corruption UNHCHR the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights UNSC the United Nation Security Council US the United States

xiii CHAPTER ONE

THE PROBLEM, JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES, LITERATURE

REVIEW, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHOD OF

DATA COLLECTION

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary Indonesia emerged as a third biggest democracy in the world, following the collapse of Suharto’s regime in 1998. From the 1950s to the late 1990s it experienced different types of authoritarian governments. The two previous presidents, Sukarno and Suharto, maintained their grip on power, and thus, successfully ruled for quite a long period.1 Interestingly, the Asian economic crisis of

1997 was the momentous event that led Indonesia to turn itself from the authoritarian leadership into an open and democratic society. It helped crystallize a reform movement known as reformasi which eventually ended authoritarian rule in

Indonesia. Reformasi has created opportunity for Indonesia’s continuing political reform process.

In indonesia, at the elite level, political change is manifested by the alteration of power. Post-Suharto Indonesia so far, has been ruled by four democratically elected governments. In addition, new political structures underlying the principles of constitutional democracy were created, in the hope that the elected government would make significant progress towards greater democracy.2 Particularly, the power sharing

1 See R. William Liddle, “Indonesia: Soeharto’s tightening grip”, in Democracy in East Asia, edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 199–200. 2 Chris Manning and Peter Van Diermen, “Recent developments and social aspects of reformasi and crisis; An overview”, in Indonesia in transition: Social aspects of reformasi and crisis, edited by Chris Manning and Peter Van Diermen (Singapore: ISEAS, 2000), 1.

1 formula of democratic electoral system requires consolidation to maintain domestic legitimacy and coalition building.3

At the grass root level, continuous demand for political reform appeared to enjoy wide scale support which increasingly strengthened the public sphere and paved the way for the resurgence of vibrant civil society with significant role in policy making process.4 For the first time over decades societal groups could exert pressure and demand for accountability at every level, and constrain decisions.

These phenomena demonstrate the complexity of the relationship between the elite and the public and at the same time exhibit broad continuity of democratisation process. In turn, the foreign policy formulation in Indonesia has also been restructured as part of the growing demands for accountability and transparency in policy making.

Prior to the reformasi in 1998, both Sukarno and Suharto exercised authoritarian rule and dominated the making of foreign policy. During Suharto’s administration, the military and its apparatus held exclusive control over the security and foreign policies, making the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a subordinate institution. Most importantly, the power centre that was located in the hands of the president created the patronage of those loyal to him.5 As a result, foreign policy direction was exclusively set up by the presidential elite (i.e. the President and his advisors).

Foreign policy formulation has, however been different in post–Suharto

Indonesia. It has marked the decrease of the military role and the restoration of

3 Anthony L. Smith, “Yudhoyono’s election win and U.S.-Indonesian relations,” Pacific Forum CSIS. No. 45, (2004). 4 Mary P. Callahan, “Civil-military relations In Indonesia: Reformasi and beyond”, Occasional Paper 4, (California, The Center For Civil-Military Relations Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, 1999), 5. 5 Leo Suryadinata, Indonesia’s foreign policy under Suharto: Aspiring to the leadership, (Singapore: Time Academic Press, 1996), 2; Lili Yulyadi, “Indonesian’s foreign policy towards five ASEAN countries 1980 – 1998,” (Master Thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia, 2000), 46–53.

2 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the main foreign policy making body.6

Furthermore, the parliamentary coalition from various party backgrounds with more freedom and power in formulating policy7 provides check and balance mechanism over the foreign policy bureaucracy and to a certain extent has helped restore the role of Committee I8 consisting of members of Indonesia’s parliament with diverse political interests.9

Moreover, the civil society, the media, interest groups, religious groups and

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have become more assertive over foreign and defence policy issues. Their activities have contributed to the creation of public consciousness with regard to government’s policies. The emergence of democratic space as such reflects the pluralist outlook of Indonesia’s national ideology the

Pancasila 10 compelling the decision makers not to ignore the domestic pressure in setting the foreign policy agenda and goals.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study examines domestic sources of foreign policy formulation in post-Suharto

Indonesia. In particular, the study aims to analyse governmental and societal sources of foreign policy making in the new democratic government of Indonesia. This study answers the following questions:

1. What were foreign policy institutions during the Suharto era?

6 Anthony L. Smith, “Indonesia’s foreign policy under Abdurrahman Wahid: Radical or status quo state?,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 22, No. 3 (2000): 504. 7 Abu Bakar E. Hara, “The difficult journey of democratisation in Indonesia,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 23, No. 2 (2001): 315. 8 Committee I is a Parliamentary Committee in the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (People’s Representative Assembly) (DPR), which formally deals with Foreign and Defense Affairs. However, during the Suharto era, this Committee played a very minimum role in decision making related to foreign matters. See Yulyadi, 53. 9 E. Hara, 317. 10 Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Harold Crouch, “Indonesia: Foreign policy and domestic politics,” Trends in Southeast Asia series: 9, (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2003).

3 2. What are the domestic sources of foreign policy of Indonesia in the post-

Suharto era?

3. What is the relationship between the government and society in the post-

Suharto Indonesia?

4. Do the domestic sources play a role in the foreign policy process in the

post-Suharto era?

PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION

Many studies have been conducted to examine Indonesia’s foreign policy. Most of the studies discuss foreign policy making in Indonesia before the reformasi and focus on the role of governmental elite in shaping foreign policy.11 Very limited studies investigate domestic sources of Indonesia’s foreign policy in the post-Suharto period.12 This study differs from others because it stresses on both governmental as well as societal sources of foreign policy in post-Suharto Indonesia. Focusing on both governmental and societal sources of foreign policy making may help to understand the nature of Indonesia’s foreign policy formulation after democratisation of its politics and society. This study hopes to make some contributions in the existing literature on foreign policy making in Indonesia. In addition, the findings of this study will enrich the literature on democratic foreign policy making in developing and emerging democracies.

11 See for instance Franklin B. Weinstein, “The uses of foreign policy in Indonesia: An approach to the analysis of foreign policy in the Less Developed Countries,” World Politics, Vol. 24, No. 3 (1972): 363–364. 12 Most of the studies on domestic sources of Indonesia’s foreign policy examine the role of Islam as national identity in the foreign policy making. See for instance Michael Leifer, “The Islamic factor in Indonesia’s foreign policy: A case of functional ambiguity,” in Islam in foreign policy, edited by Adeed Dawisha (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1983).

4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study are to:

1. identify the domestic sources of foreign policy formulation in post-

Suharto Indonesia.

2. examine the degree of influence of domestic sources on foreign policy

making in Indonesia.

3. analyse the new patterns of the relationship between the government and

the society in the foreign policy formulation in Indonesia.

4. examine whether the domestic sources play significant role in the foreign

policy process in post-Suharto Indonesia.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Most works on Indonesia’s foreign policy making are concerned with the Sukarno and the Suharto regimes. Works dealing with post-Suharto foreign policy making are few.

Interestingly, none of these works combine governmental and societal sources of foreign policy making to explain post-Suharto Indonesia’s foreign policy. The literature reviewed below are divided into two types: (1) studies that provide general analysis of Indonesia’s foreign policy, and (2) the studies that deal with foreign policy making in Indonesia or factors of Indonesia’s foreign policy.

General Studies on Indonesia’s Foreign Policy

Michael Leifer discusses the political progress of Indonesia’s foreign policy.13 He examines continuity and change in Indonesia’s foreign policy under Sukarno and

13 See, Michael Leifer, “Indonesia’s foreign policy: Change and continuity,” in Michael Leifer: Selected works on Southeast Asia, edited by Chin Kin Wah and Leo Suryadinata (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2005), 592–602.

5 Suharto. He argues that foreign policy under Sukarno and Suharto was characterized by continuity rather than change. However, the exception to this general characteristic was the temporary confrontation with Malaysia known as Konfrontasi policy. Such continuity resulted from the sustained feeling of intrinsic vulnerability combined with ambition to become a leading state in the region. Indonesia’s perception of itself as such has been due to its historical, geographical as well as strategic position.14

Paradoxically, the determination to get rid of external powers in the region was complicated by incompatible strategic perspective of other regional partners concerning the presence of notably the United States (US), Japan and other major powers. Thus, according to Leifer, both Sukarno and Suharto while highlighting independent and active characteristics of foreign policy, prudently exhibited pragmatic nature of their actions towards other countries.15

Leo Suryadinata examines the main factors such as the capability, the perception of Indonesia’s leader, the political culture and the political institutions in shaping the foreign policy of Indonesia.16 Through analysis of Indonesia’s relations with various countries, Leo concludes that despite its limited resources, Indonesia never abandoned its desire to play an active role in regional and world affairs.17

According to R.J. Vatikiotis, Indonesia’s active and assertive participation in regional and global affairs in the late 1980s were a result of its economic growth. He argues that Indonesia’s economic priorities continuously underpins its strong relation with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and some emerging Asian

14 Ibid., 594. 15 Ibid., 600–602. 16 Leo Suryadinata, Indonesia’s foreign policy under Suharto: Aspiring to the leadership, (Singapore: Time Academic Press, 1996), 2. 17 Ibid., 186.

6 powers such as Japan, China and India.18 Kirdi Dipyudo shares similar view as he argues that the redefinition of independent and active foreign policy during Suharto era was manifested by the principal duty of Indonesia to serve its economic interest.

Thus, foreign policy were design to stimulate economic development at home.

However, Indonesia’s commitment to exercise independent foreign policy created dilemma of balancing its needs for foreign aid and reliance on developed countries.19

Thus, Indonesia’s active role in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and other regional institutions such as ASEAN was partly intended to foster up the establishment of a more just International New Economic Order (INEO).20

According to Sukma, the dynamic and assertive behaviour of Indonesia in the

1990s in the region was the manifestation of the final stage of the ideal form of bebas- aktif “independent and active” foreign policy. The evolutionary stages underlying the basic principle of independent and active foreign policy in the initial formation and the radicalization of Indonesia’s foreign policy during Sukarno era are the unique historical, cultural and political experiences which led to the completion of the ideal form of the “independent and active” foreign policy.21 Sukma argues that changes in the three evolutionary stages are not necessarily understood as “a retreat” in

Indonesia’s foreign policy, but rather a historical necessity upon which the completion stage is reached.22

Emmers goes beyond the assertive nature of Indonesia’s foreign policy, as he argues that Indonesia’s sense of entitlement over Maritime Southeast Asia has been its

18 Michael R.J. Vatikiotis, “Indonesia’s foreign policy in the 1990s,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 14, No.4 (1993): 352–361. 19 Kirdi Dipoyudo, “Changes and trends in Indonesia’s foreign policy,” in Trends in Indonesia II, edited by Leo Suryadinata and Sharn Sidique (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1981), 120–121. 20 Ibid., 123. 21 Rizal Sukma, “The evolution of Indonesia’s foreign policy,” Asian Survey, Vol. XXXV, No.3 (1995): 305–310. 22 Ibid., 314.

7 enormous aspiration to become a regional hegemon which had been successfully achieved at least until the 1997. However, such hegemonic position had been easily accomplished when Indonesia deployed a more benevolent approach such as its aspirations through leadership, accommodation, shared ideology, and persuasion which facilitated its leading role within the ASEAN until 1997, rather than coercive method, such as the use of military force as in the case of East Timor which impeded sustainability and viability of its hegemonic character. Moreover, the economic disasters experienced by Indonesia in 1997–1998 has further weakened its exercise of both benevolent as well as coercive power and to certain extent has made its status of regional hegemon questionable.23

Dewi Fortuna Anwar discusses regionalism and Suharto’s ASEAN policy, highlighting the development of the Southeast Asian region since the establishment of the ASEAN in 1967 to the late 1980s. She examines the policy of Indonesian government towards ASEAN cooperation as a whole from 1967 to 1987. In her analysis, the domestic and foreign pressures had driven the country towards regional cooperation.24 She concludes that the ASEAN is the main pillar of Indonesia’s foreign policy in the region. Indonesia’s long standing aspiration to become leading player could only be realized once Indonesia actively involves in the ASEAN. 25

Paige Johnson argues that the following hitherto values guided Indonesia’s foreign policy: the importance of international institutions, protecting Indonesia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, maintaining free and active foreign policy and

23 Ralf Emmers, “Regional hegemonies and the exercise of power in Southeast Asia: A study of Indonesia and Vietnam,” Asian Survey, Vol. XLV, No. 4 (2005): 664– 665. 24 Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Indonesia in ASEAN: Foreign policy and regionalism, (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1994), 45–57. 25 Ibid.

8 claiming the right to lead.26 Accordingly, Sukarno’s revolutionary policies and

Suharto’s economic development policies were projected to maintain domestic power, while simultaneously supporting multilateralism. Similarly, the aspirations to lead still exist for post-Suharto leaders. However, the country’s current capabilities have been limited. Thus, Indonesia has been forced to focus in its conduct of foreign relations on securing the country’s territorial integrity and most basic needs.27

Thinking in the same line, Smith argues President Wahid strengthened

Indonesia’s relation with China and India. President Wahid’s play of the “Asia card” in Indonesia’s relation with the West reflect ’s continuous effort to maintain and promote Indonesia’s aspiration to lead the non-Aligned Movement in particular and the Third World in general.28 In line with the free and active tradition, Indonesia continuously pursued foreign policy promoting multilateralism. Thus, President

Wahid’s foreign policy agenda combined an orthodox method of securing West’s economic aids, with the continuous regional cooperation notably with the ASEAN and the neighbouring countries such as Australia, East Timor, and the strengthening the relation with the Middle East and the third world countries.29

In line with this finding, Daniel Novotny contends that foreign policy elite perception in Jakarta concerning the China threat is gradually replaced by the US threat in the post Cold War era, suggesting that Indonesia’s response has been motivated by the balance of threat logic. According to him, US interference forced

Sukarno to forge relation with the Soviet Union. Similarly, Suharto’s restoration of the

26 Paige Johnson Tan, “Navigating a turbulent ocean: Indonesia’s world view and foreign policy,” Asian Perspective, Vol. 31, No. 3 (2007): 148–174. 27 Ibid., 178–179. 28 Smith, “Indonesia’s foreign policy…, 512–513. 29 Ibid., 513–517.

9 relationship with China was made to secure the legitimacy of his authoritarian ’s regime, as he faced the threat of promoting democracy by the US in the post Cold War era.30

Literature on Factors of Indonesia’s Foreign Policy

Franklin Weinstein highlights the domestic consideration as pushing factor in

Indonesia’s foreign policy. In his examination of foreign policy in Indonesia during the period of 1962-1970, Weinstein found that the political environment and to certain extent, the leadership transformation were behind a dramatic change in the foreign policy of Sukarno and Suharto.31 Pursuit of independent foreign policy guided

Indonesia’s foreign relations from 1962 to 1966 under Sukarno. A sharp policy reversal however, started to appear in the period of 1966–1970, as Indonesia’s foreign policy direction shifted towards the development goals under Suharto.32 Subsequently,

Suharto was driven more to pursue the foreign policy of development. However,

Weinstein’s study focuses on the role of elite only as major decision making actors. It does not investigate governmental institutions as well as societal forces.

Similarly, the study done by Yusuf Wanandi, highlights that before reformasi, domestic changes basically had become significant considerations for Indonesian government to formulate its foreign policy. The economic problem of unemployment and inequalities, accompanied by the wave of internationalization exposed the

Indonesian public to the different political and religious ideas. This in turn resulted in the demand for accountability and openness. However, despite such optimistic changes, the historical trauma of the 1965 would likely justify the elite to dominate

30 Daniel Novotny, “Indonesia’s foreign policy: In quest for the balance of threats”, paper presented to the 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia (Canberra 29 June – 2 July 2004). 31 Weinstein, “The uses of foreign policy…, 363–364. 32 Ibid., 364–366.

10 the political affairs, including foreign policy formulation as shown by President

Suharto’s pragmatic preference and his dominant position in the foreign policy process.33 Wanandi, while focusing on economic factors in the foreign policy making, did not investigate other domestic sources of foreign policy, particularly the societal sources.

Peter Polomka discusses the role of the Tentara Nasional Indonesia

(Indonesian National Army) (TNI) in Indonesia’s foreign policy making. The TNI during the late fifties had successfully abandoned the foreign policy of confrontation enunciated previously by the civilian government. Its recognition that the strength of armed forces would be determined largely by the economic performance of the country, enabled it to confront future Communist challenge in Indonesia, and facilitated the TNI’s support for the foreign policy of economic stabilization and rehabilitation.34 Suryadinata shares the same view concerning the military role in

Indonesia’s foreign policy. The military played decisive role with respect to security issues in the earlier part of Suharto era. Its role however was gradually reduced as

Suharto became more confident.35

However, Josef Silverstein argues that the military’s involvement in

Indonesia’s return to the foreign policy of non-alignment and neutrality pursued in early fifties, in a way balanced between the West vis a vis the Soviet Union and

Eastern European bloc. This did not contradict the foreign policy developed over years by civilian predecessors to which the military made important contributions.36

33 Yusuf Wanandi, “Indonesian politics and its impact on foreign policy,” The Indonesian Quarterly, Vol.17, No.4 (1990): 351–253. 34 Peter Polomka, “The Indonesian army and confrontation: An inquiry into the functions of foreign policy under Guided Democracy,” (Master Thesis, the University of Melbourne, 1969), 326–239. 35 Suryadinata, Indonesia’s foreign policy…, 187–188. 36 Josef Silverstein, “The military and foreign policy in Burma and Indonesia,” Asian Survey, Vol. 22, No.3 (1982): 284–286.

11