The Essence of Multilateralism in Maintaining Indonesia’s National Integrity

Multilateralism refers to a system of coordinating relations between three or more states in accordance with certain principles of conduct. As a policy, multilateralism is deliberate action by a state, in concert with others, to realize objectives in particular issue areas. Multilateralism can also be intertwined with institutionalism regarding the common principles of conduct in which ones’ members are obliged to adhere. Indeed, contemporary multilateralism often converted into international institutions or to become the so-called “institutionalised multilateralism.”

Due to its nature of shared cooperation among countries, states regard multilateralism as a mean in pursuing their national interests. Thus, multilateralism can become the international “platform” for states to gain not only international recognition, but also cooperation in pursuing their national interests. Indonesia is no exceptional. A country with enormous diversity in terms of culture and ethnicity, Indonesia has put forward its agenda in multilateral forum to fully support its efforts in integrating its multiethnic, yet fragile society. Therefore, Indonesian government has been keen on engaging in various multilateral forums, most notably through the United Nations (UN) in order to prevent any secession or disintegration attempt provoked by dissidents who defied and doubted Jakarta’s full sovereignty.

In its effort to mitigate and prevent secession attempts, the government has reiterated the need to the formulation of a foreign policy which supports Indonesia’s engagement in multilateral forums. This foreign policy has resurfaced in Indonesia’s 2006 main development programs entitled “Bolstering Foreign Policy and Enhancing International Cooperation” in which one of its main programs is “the enhancement of international support towards Indonesia’s integration and sovereignty”. Hence, such a program still proved to be in the top list of Indonesia’s foreign policy.

Thereby, various schemes have been made during 2006-2007 period in order to mitigate and prevent any disintegration attempt. In mitigation schemes, the government has been trying to gain international recognition over Indonesia’s legitimate sovereignty of West Papua Province (formerly known as Irian Jaya) while at the same time, has increased the number of military personnel to deal with security threats posed by the so-called “Organisasi Papua Merdeka” or Free Papua Organization. Indonesia’s election by the UN General Assembly to become Chairman of the Security Council (SC) is a major diplomatic victory to gain international recognition over West Papua’s integration into Indonesia – unless West Papua is still “a pebble in the shoe” for Indonesia just like East Timor, Indonesia wouldn’t have had been elected to lead the SC. In response, the US Congress decided to remove Papuan issue from its main agenda including reaffirming its stance to fully recognized Indonesia’s sovereignty over West Papua. Australia followed suit through a statement in 2006 by its Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, reinstating that Canberra would be “very delighted” over Indonesia’s sovereignty of Papua. However, the result of this scheme still remains to be seen because the conflict has not yet been resolved.

In prevention schemes, Indonesian government has convinced the international community that it would guarantee the equality between the central and provincial government in terms of economical and political dimensions. This scheme is well-exemplified in Aceh’s conflict resolution marked by the signing of “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) between the Indonesian government and former Aceh’s separatist rebel leaders in Helsinki, 2005. The MoU generally stated that Aceh could have its own local political parties and receive a bigger portion of provincial income. In accordance with the signing of the MoU, Indonesia has also ratified the UN Economic, Social and Cultural Convention (ECOSOC) to further reaffirm the international community that Indonesia is committed towards its path to mend its human rights record, especially the rights of indigenous people. Therefore, in the 62nd UN General Assembly debate session held on 25 September 2007, Indonesian President, Susilo B. Yudhoyono, convincingly stated that “dialogue and soft power have helped resolve various intrastate conflicts, including in Aceh when two years ago we reached a peaceful political settlement which permanently ended the conflict”. The “dialogue” and “soft power” are, of course, part of the conflict resolutions in which the MoU finally became its “political settlement”. Had Indonesia continue to choose unilateral coercive measures in dealing with Aceh separatists, Indonesia wouldn’t have delivered such a statement.

In sum, Indonesia has benefited from its commitment in maintaining multilateralism in order to implement Indonesia’s foreign policy. Issues as sensitive as sovereignty and national integrity eventually could be resolved by Indonesia’s full engagement in multilateral forums, such as the UN. Nevertheless, whilst conflict in Aceh had already been resolved, Indonesia’s efforts in dealing with Papuan issue are yet to be seen. Thereby, multilateralism is undoubtedly essential for Indonesian government to once again convince the international community that it still continues to engage in constructive peace-building efforts to maintain its national integrity.