Perlukah Peranan Deplu di Daerah?

By Perry PADA

Representasi kehadiran institusi – institusi luar negeri dengan berbagai macam bentuk dan labelnya telah lama beroperasi di berbagai propinsi / daerah di Indonesia. Tampaknya hal ini merupakan konsekuensi logis atas tuntutan globalisasi dan komitmen-komitmen yang dibuat oleh pemerintah Indonesia dengan berbagai institusi internasional dalam berbagai aspek yang tidak dapat dihindari. Sebagai contoh sebut saja badan internasional seperti kantor perwakilan-perwakilan asing negara – negara sahabat, badan - badan PBB, Lembaga Non Pemerintah lintas nasional dan nasional yang berafiliasi dengan badan-badan internasional, kantor – kantor proyek bantuan dan kerjasama internasional ataupun perusahaan-perusahaan multi nasional, seperti misalnya a.l. Freeport di Papua, Exxon di Aceh, Mobil Oil dan lain sebagainya yang saat ini berjumlah cukup besar.

Persinggungan langsung antara kepentingan daerah dan proyek asing di daerah serta dampaknya terhadap proses kehidupan sosial, ekonomi dan politik masyarakat di daerah, tampaknya kurang mendapat perhatian para penyusun kebijakan nasional. Sebenarnya dengan semakin maraknya kehadiran unsur asing di daerah merupakan tantangan dan kesempatan positif bagi pelaksanaan Politik Luar Negeri kita. Namun sayangnya upaya menuju kearah itu masih berada dalam ranah diskursus serta implementasinya masih terbentur kepada kuatnya arogansi sektoral dan birokrasi.

Sudah menjadi suatu keniscayaan bahwa globalisasi menuntut penyesuaian kebijakan dan program pembangunan dan hal tersebut merupakan suatu kebutuhan nasional yang tidak dapat dihindari dalam rangka mengantisipasi berbagai perubahan yang terjadi di berbagai level kehidupan masyarakat, khususnya ketika bersentuhan dengan unsur luar negeri. Persoalannya adalah sejauh mana Negara lewat pemerintah mampu menyusun suatu kebijakan dan program guna memberdayakan masyarakat khususnya di level daerah/provinsi sehingga mampu dalam meraih kesempatan dari dan sekaligus menghindari kerugian akibat gencarnya arus globalisasi. Berangkat dari pemahaman tersebut maka dibutuhkan suatu sinergi yang “integrated” antara pusat dan daerah serta luar negeri dalam rangka mencapai tujuan pembangunan nasional secara menyeluruh.

Pendekatan Intermestik dan diplomasi publik

Dalam kaitan ini penting kita melihat kembali referensi akademis klasik karya James Rosenau (Toward the Study of National and International Lingkages) yang disempurnakan oleh Robert D. Putnam (Diplomacy and Domestic Politics : The Logic of Two level Games) yang keduanya menekankan tesis yang sama yaitu adanya keterkaitan erat antara faktor-faktor domestik dan sukses tidaknya peran diplomasi suatu Negara. Mereka sependapat bahwa dibutuhkan berbagai strategi penyesuaian faktor-faktor domestik guna memperoleh posisi dalam percaturan internasional. Kemampuan penanganan masalah-masalah domestik dengan dan melalui penyesuaian struktur dan kebijakan akan sangat menentukan kiprah berhasil tidaknya ‘foreign policy’ suatu Negara.

Dalam menanggapi mengglobalnya setiap isu domestik dan akibat dari munculnya pemain-pemain baru di bidang hubungan luar negeri, Menlu R.I. DR. N. Hasan Wirajuda dalam berbagai kesempatan di forum-forum nasional selalu meyampaikan mengenai pentingnya melaksanakan diplomasi total dengan mensitir ucapan Bung Hatta (Desember 1945) yang mengatakan bahwa politik luar negeri yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah mestilah sejalan dengan politik dalam negerinya dan didukung oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia guna memperoleh hasil diplomasi yang maksimum.

Oleh karenanya menurut Menlu, Diplomasi total akan berhasil apabila melalui 2 (dua) bentuk pendekatan yang sling melengkapi yaitu pertama pemahaman faktor “Intermestik” yaitu kemampuan untuk mendekatkan jarak antara faktor internasional dan faktor domestik dan yang kedua adalah diplomasi public yaitu kemampuan mengkomunikasikan perkembangan-perkembangan dunia luar ke dalam negeri sehingga baik langsung maupun tidak langsung dapat tercipta suatu kebulatan pendapat dari semua komponen bangsa guna menentukan sikap dalam menghadapi dunia luar.

Dengan kedua cara inilah dapat dihindari fragmentasi opini publik di tingkat nasional. Lebih jauh diplomasi publik juga merupakan suatu upaya agar kebijakan luar negeri dapat lebih menyentuh kepentingan seluruh lapisan masyarakat, sehingga hasil dan manfaat dari suatu kebijakan luar negeri dapat dirasakan oleh berbagai elemen masyarakat Indonesia. Selama ini dirasakan bahwa ‘foreign policy’ adalah kebijakan yang elitis yang tidak membumi, sementara itu Deplu berdiri sebagai menara gading. Sebagai contoh masalah tentang keputusan Indonesia untuk mendukung resolusi PBB tentang Iran, atau ribut – ribut tentang perjanjian ekstradisi dengan Singapura, merupakan gambaran masih ada jarak dunia diplomasi dari kehidupan publik dan itulah salah satu akar fragmentasi opini publik.

Melalui pendekatan diatas diharapkan para pelaku hubungan luar negeri dan terutama para SDM diplomat Indonesia mampu menjalan tugas diplomasinya dengan sebaik-baiknya. Untuk menjawab ini, perubahan manajemen dan struktur organisasi kelembagaan Deplu tampaknya tidak dapat dihindari. Namun, patut disayangkan elaborasi dari pemikiran pimpinan Deplu belum sepenuhnya terlaksana di tingkat pelaksana, sehingga hasilnya pun belum sesuai dengan harapannya.

Perwakilan Deplu Domestik perlu dipertimbangkan

Dalam kaitan ini, penting untuk mencermati UU tentang Otonomi Daerah terutama mengenai kewenangan daerah dalam melaksanakan kerjasama yang saling menguntungkan dengan lembaga/badan di luar negeri. Terlepas adanya perdebatan mengenai ketidaksesuaian antara UU Hublu dan Otda terutama dalam hal kewenangan daerah melakukan hubungan dengan pihak luar negeri, atau perdebatan mengenai hubungan luar negeri dan kebijakan luar negeri, dari kedua UU dapat ditafsirkan bahwa peran daerah – daerah akan semakin meningkat dan signifikan dalam menentukan bentuk kerjasama dengan lembaga-lembaga luar negeri. Mampukah Pejambon melakukan tugas koordinator dan kontrolnya yang begitu luas menjadi renungan serta pemikiran yang menantang yang dapat menjadi bahan diskusi yang menarik.

Dalam rangka melaksanakan hubungan kerjasama Daerah dengan pihak asing, Deplu telah menerbitkan buku “Panduan Umum : Tatacara Hubungan Luar Negeri oleh Pemerintah Daerah”. Disamping itu Deplu juga telah menempatkan seorang stafnya di kantor Pemerintah Daerah masing-masing di Pemda Yogyakarta, Aceh dan Papua sebagai tugas perbantuan.

Penerbitan aturan petunjuk dan tugas perbantuan di Daerah merupakan perkembangan yang postif namun masih tidak mencukupi jika dilihat dari luas serta pentingnya tugas yang diemban. Pemerintah Pusat perlu mempertimbangkan untuk melembagakan kehadiran Deplu di daerah-daerah melalui suatu kebijakan nasional. Kebijakan ini sangat signifikan guna mendukung pelaksanaan hubungan luar negeri di daerah-daerah sebagai pelaksanaan kebijakan “one door policy”. Disamping itu Deplu dapat berperan sebagai kantor konsultan bagi para pelaku hubungan internasional di daerah baik itu lokal maupun asing. Ada banyak keuntungan nyata yang dapat diperoleh apabila Deplu membuka “kanwil” di daerah-daerah otonomi. Secara umum manfaat yang dapat dicapai antara lain yaitu:

1. Terbentuknya pemahaman yang komprehensif mengenai kebutuhan daerah yang bisa dipenuhi melalui kerjasama dengan pihak luar negeri;
2. Tercipta sinergi koordinasi kinerja antara Deplu, Pemerintah Daerah dan Perwakilan Indonesia di luar negeri sekaligus meningkatkan kinerja Perwakilan RI di luar negeri, sehingga agenda diplomasi tidak hanya kepada tataran nilai yang normatif tetapi juga bermuara pada kepentingan konkrit masyarakat di daerah;
3. Mencegah terjadinya ‘kesalahan’ dalam pelaksanaan kerjasama internasional yang dilaksanakan oleh daerah yang akan berdampak negative;
4. Mempermudah penyusunan kebijakan hubungan luar negeri yang lebih akurat dan membumi;
5. Pejabat Dinas Luar Negeri Indonesia lebih membumi yakni mampu melihat berbagai potensi daerah yang dapat “dijual” di pasar internasional sebelum ditempatkan di luar negeri;
6. Menciptakan mesin-mesin diplomasi yang tersebar di seluruh pelosok daerah sebagai bagian dari total diplomasi.

Bahwa sebagai salah satu departemen di kabinet, Deplu membuka perwakilan di daerah bukan hal yang aneh, mengingat Departemen teknis lainnya seperti Hankam, Agama, Hukum, Keuangan telah memainkan peranannya di berbagai daerah. Bahkan beberapa Negara lain juga telah melakukan strategi membuka Kemlu di daerah – daerahnya, salah satu contoh adalah Kemlu Cina. Keberhasilan Cina yang mampu menjadi kekuatan raksasa ekonomi dunia yang baru, tidak terlepas dari peran diplomasinya yang mampu menjadikan desa-desanya sebagai produk pasar dunia.

Sebaiknya kita lebih melihat politik luar negeri dengan kaca mata yang lebih “sederhana dan membumi” namun fokus yaitu sebagai instrument meningkatkan kemajuan pembangunan ekonomi nasional yang dimulai dengan promosi kepentingan daerah ke luar negeri dan bukan sebaliknya melihat hal-hal yang besar untuk kepentingan pencitraan diri namun tidak mendatangkan keuntungan ekonomi yang nyata. Akhirnya dengan lebih memperhatikan daerah kita berharap definisi kepentingan nasional semakin dapat dimaknai dan dimaterialkan dengan jelas. Hal ini pada akhirnya juga bermuara pada keutuhan Negara Republik Indonesia yang kita cintai ini.

Jakarta, 10 Juli 2005

Read More..

Nationalism and Diplomacy

By Perry PADA

There is a bit of confusion in the perspective of Pak Djiwandono's article title Indon amount diplomacy nothing" - The Jakarta Post April 2006, particularly on the issue of nationalism. The contra argument is obvious, while one must be guided by principles of fundamental decency, the construction of a strong national identity in the 3rd World is the sole guarantor its independence and self-direction. To argue that nationalism is a mere device relevant solely to the colonial period is to misread history. In this unwarranted era of globalization, our nationalism should be more constructed properly adjusted with our national interests and international environment. This in way should imply the real colour of our diplomatic struggle confronting international issues.

Moreover, it is a necessity that we should see the essence of nationalism conception through 3rd world intellectual lens and perceptions. This will create a different perception to view the issues of nationalism while refining our nationalism conception. Nationalism can be insidious, but it can also be a cohesive in which society can identify and address its central problem of the addressing the most deprived within it. This suggests that our sense of nationalism has a significant meaning to reach our end goals. Otherwise the powerful, will undermine and weaken the social fabric making the society totally vulnerable to external political forces, The recent rapprochement with the US military is a mere example, I guess.

The way citizens’ express their sense of nationalism against Australian attitudes cannot be undermined and therefore ignorance, they just need more substantial directives while the development of collective feeling of nationalism among citizens is indeed remarkable. It cannot be denied that the triggered of our 42 Papuans brothers and sister left the country is mere to the worst domestic conditions in Papua, but to aggregate the poor development issue by weakening millions of Indonesians sense of nationalism is also a not wise attitude. It would lead us to be more vulnerable to our external world. Therefore, to this point, nationalism is our guarantee.

Australia clearly, once again, has taken on a surrogate role on behalf of the US in the region, as further evidenced by what transpired in East Timor and now deliberately interfere with Papua’s problem. This is not a friendly gesture. Therefore to this end, it is only am Indonesia with pride in itself which can overcome unwarranted external interference.

Jakarta, 6 April 2006

Read More..

Indonesian Diplomats Need to Uploading Local Content

By Perry Pada

Globalization has come to gradually shape domestic policies and programs and increasingly positioning these policies into conformity with a set of international standard and requirements. This in way implies or should imply an abandonment of our national values. We are experiencing a clear synergy, that as international pressure increases, and domestic circumstances worsen, national policy adjustment must be undertaken to respond collectively to this new reality. Hence, domestic and international conditions are always dynamically interactive and relatively inseparable. The precise dimensions of their entanglement always require an ever refining strategic concept which permits a proper blending of the two factors. This requires a sensitive attitude of our diplomatic corps whose responsibility is at least in part to act as a filter.

A related reality is that in this era of democracy there are demands that foreign policy should be based upon as wide of a national consensus as possible. This suggests that that diplomacy will be most effective when supported by significant sectors of society, while retaining for government the role of key player. It is consequently important to encourage the creation of potential constituencies and social networks associated with specific issues. These coalitions, certainly, may be fluid depending on the issues.

A coalition construction strategy

The working of foreign relations should reflect the dynamic domestic needs and preferences as well as fundamental values of the nation. Therefore the ability to comprehend the important link between domestic and international affairs is critical for effective diplomacy particularly in this age of globalization. Developing a seamless link between domestic policy and international affairs is among the central issues of foreign policy making and should in turn enhance our capacity to act.

Domestic constituencies and preferences have to be taken seriously in the construction of a meaningful foreign policy. Therefore the effort to involve the society such as civil society, the business sector, the NGOs, the mass media, the academe is gaining domestic support for the formation and implementation of foreign policy is an important one. Moreover, domestic politics give expression to what preferences are, how they are aggregated and how the national interest is constructed. In addition domestic politics can help explain the strategies states adopt to realize their goals. Moreover, foreign policy of a country should be able to address domestic issue while adjusting those to reasonable international standards with the definite clear goal that foreign policy can be advantageous to domestic interests. We must further increase our voice in the setting of these international standards.

It is a necessity that Indonesian diplomats, and all potential sectors associated in the field of foreign relations ‘think and act within an international and domestic (intermestic) framework’. This would lead them to see the opportunities and challenges while linking the priorities to domestic needs in conducting diplomacy. A set of domestic priorities and an accompanying consensus agenda should be clearly explored in public discourse prior to the arriving at a public policy consensus.

The strategy of assigning Indonesian diplomats to serve at domestic regional level offices is clearly implementing this intermestic approach. Indonesian diplomats should be intimately familiar with local issues. The basic idea is to create a multi-track reciprocal diplomacy which encourages the potential local actors to be international players or “local diplomats”. They should be as professional as possible at the regional level, expressing a regional perspective within the unity of the nation.

There are a series of benefits gained from the “local assignment program’ which are preparing a highly professional mission oriented diplomat. First is to upgrade the competence of Indonesian diplomats particularly having in-depth knowledge and a good nuanced understanding of the regional potentials or local content that can be promoted abroad. Secondly is to create effective and efficient policy coordination between regional agencies and the Department of Foreign Affairs since the Department remains the upholder of the one door policy. Thirdly, while enhancing local diplomacy, emphasis will be placed on expertise. Fourthly is to implement public diplomacy such as communicating the progress of national foreign relations to the people while educating regional government and receiving their feedback. In this way, we will be implementing a good governance foreign policy. At the same time, we are creating many diplomatic engines extending to provincial and regional levels simultaneously to respond to the global challenges and opportunities. This concept is eventually paving a way for an in depth and united diplomacy approach in the future.

Further more, in the era of transparency, the active involvement of Indonesian diplomats in regional and international groupings should be always clearly evaluated, calculated and directed to its end goal which is attaining a more complete national interest – within its blue print foreign relations strategy – otherwise we are merely squandering people’s tax money by playing with unclear circles.

Read More..

Deplu perlu membuka "Kanwil” di Daerah Otonomi

By Perry PADA

Representasi “international presence” dalam berbagai macam bentuk dan lebelnya telah lama beroperasi di berbagai propinsi / daerah di Indonesia dan hal ini merupakan konsekuensi logis atas komitmen-komitmen yang dibuat pemerintah Indonesia dengan berbagai institusi internasional baik formal maupun non formal. Sebagai contoh sebut saja badan internasional seperti kantor perwakilan-perwakilan asing, badan-badan UN, NGOs nasional yang berafiliasi dengan badan-badan internasional, proyek-proyek bantuan dan kerjasama internasional ataupun perusahaan-perusahaan multi nasional seperti Freeport di Papua, Exxon di Aceh dan lain sebagainya yang berjumlah cukup besar.

Representasi dari kehadiran lembaga-lembaga internasional didaerah-daerah sesuai dengan agenda dan kepentingan masing-masing juga tidak dapat dihindari langsung maupun tidak langsung akan berdampak cukup besar terhadap kehidupan sosial ekonomi dan politik daerah setempat. Persinggungan “asymmetrical” antara kepentingan asing dan lokal yang saling pengaruh tampaknya kurang mendapat perhatian yang cukup serius dari para peneliti kita dan terutama para penyusun kebijakan nasional.

Globalisasi isu domestik

Sadar maupun tidak definisi nasional dan internasional semakin kabur batasannya apabila dikontekstualkan dalam hubungan internasional. Keterkaitan isu domestik dan internasional telah semakin kental atau tidak dapat dipisahkan. Semua gambaran umum mengenai globalisasi tersebut telah berulangkali muncul dalam berbagai “ruang” diskusi para praktisi maupun intelektual kita namun sayangnya masih dalam batas ranah wacana dan kurang mendapat tanggapan serius ditingkat pengambil keputusan. Kata reaktif tampaknya sulit dihilangkan dalam kamus birokrasi kita dan akibatnya menjadi mahal harganya. Kita kaya dengan berbagai pengalaman buruk tersebut. Sebut saja isu – isu ‘politik’ yang terjadi di berbagai tempat di Indonesia seperti isu HAM di Aceh, Poso, Maluku, Papua, dan berbagai tempat lainnya serta isu-isu perusakan lingkungan hidup, isu-isu korupsi ataupun penanganan berbagai peristiwa yang tidak diantisipasi sedini mungkin dan berakibat fatal bagi posisi Indonesia di percaturan politik internasional.

Pembentukan ‘task force’ yang sering tergesa-gesa merupakan salah satu contoh jelas betapa reaktifnya kita. Dalam kaitan ini, DR. CPF Luhulima pernah menulis artikel manarik berjudul ‘Globalisasi dan Manajemen Politik Luar Negeri’ (Kompas, 18 Januari 2001) yang dengan jelas menggambarkan mengenai akibat globalisasi yang akan merugikan kepentingan nasional apabila tidak dibarengi dengan penyesuaian struktur atau mekanisme dan manajemen pemerintah yang dapat berfungsi secara efektif, dalam hal ini khususnya menyoroti efektifitas peran Departemen Luar Negeri yang perlu didefinisikan kembali menghadapi isu-isu global.

Pendekatan Intermestik dan diplomasi publik

Adalah James Rosenau (Toward the Study of National and International Lingkages) yang disempurnakan oleh Robert D. Putnam (Diplomacy and Domestic Politics : The Logic of Two level Games) dan Peter Gourevitch (The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics) yang semuanya secara ringkas menggambarkan tesis yang sama tentang keterkaitan erat faktor-faktor domestik dalam menentukan sukses tidaknya peran diplomasi suatu negara untuk itu dibutuhkan strategi penyesuaian faktor-faktor domestic guna memperoleh posisi dalam percaturan internasional. Kemampuan penanganan masalah-masalah domestic dengan dan melalui penyesuaian struktur dan kebijakan sangat menentukan kiprah berhasil tidaknya foreign policy suatu Negara.

Dalam menanggapi mengglobalnya setiap domestic issu dan akibat dari munculnya pemain-pemain baru di bidang hubungan luar negeri, Menlu R.I. DR. Hasan Wirayuda dalam berbagai kesempatan di forum-forum nasional selalu meyampaikan mengenai pentingnya melaksanakan diplomasi total dengan mensitir ucapan Bung Hatta (Desember 1945) yang mengatakan bahwa politik luar negeri yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah mestilah sejalan dengan politik dalam negerinya dan didukung oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia guna memperoleh hasil diplomacy yang maksimum. Oleh karenanya menurut Menlu, Diplomasi total akan berhasil apabila melalui 2 (dua) bentuk pendekatan yaitu pertama pemahaman faktor “Intermestik” yaitu kemampuan untuk mendekatkan jarak antara faktor internasional dan faktor domestik dan yang kedua adalah diplomasi public yaitu kemampuan mengkomunikasikan perkembangan-perkembangan dunia luar ke dalam negeri sehingga baik langsung maupun tidak langsung dapat tercipta suatu kebulatan pendapat dari semua komponen bangsa guna menentukan sikap dalam menghadapi dunia luar. Dengan kedua cara inilah apat dihindari fragmentasi opini publik di tingkat nasional. Lebih jauh diplomasi publik juga merupakan suatu upaya agar foreign policy dapat lebih menyentuh pada seluruh lapisan masyarakat, sehingga hasil manfaat dari suatu kebijakan luar negeri dapat dirasakan oleh masyarakat Indonesia.

Selama ini masih dirasakan bahwa foreign policy adalah kebijakan yang elitis yang tidak membumi dan Deplu berdiri sebagai menara gading. Dengan kedua pendekatan ini diharapkan para pelaku hubungan luar negeri dan terutama para SDM diplomat Indonesia mampu menjalan tugas diplomasinya dengan sebaik-baiknya. Yang menjadi pertanyaannya adalah bagaimana menciptakan diplomat yang intermestik, go public yang nantinya tentunya diharapkan mampu go international? Untuk menjawab ini, perubahan manajemen dan struktur organisasi kelembagaan Deplu tampaknya tidak dapat dihindari.

Perwakilan Deplu Domestik perlu dipertimbangkan

Deplu juga patut bersyukur karena telah dibekali dengan UU No. 37 tahun 1999 tentang Hubungan Luar Negeri sebagai arah yang jelas bagi kelangsungan hubungan diplomatic Indonesia. Namun demikian UU Hublu tersebut juga memberikan justifikasi bahwa Deplu bukanlah lagi satu-satunya lembaga pelaksana hubungan luar negeri, karena dengan UU tersebut dalam pelaksanaannya pelaksana hubungan luar negeri telah dibagi rata dengan seluruh komponen bangsa. Dalam mengeluarkan suatu kebijakan rumusan “one-door policy” masih menjadi monopoli Deplu tapi rumusan kebijakan tentunya tidak dapat digolkan dengan mulus tanpa keterlibatan para pelaksana hubungan luar negeri dalam prosesnya. Khususnya pasal 1 ayat (1) menyebutkan bahwa “hubungan luar negeri adalah setiap kegiatan yang menyangkut aspek regional dan internasional yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah di tingkat pusat dan daerah, atau lembaga-lembaganya, lembaga Negara, badan usaha, organisasi politik, organisasi masyarakat, lembaga swadaya masyarakat, atau warga Negara Indonesia”.

Dalam kaitan ini, penting juga mengamati UU No 22/99 yang telah dirobah dengan UU no.32/1999 tentang Otonomi Daerah terutama pasal 7 (1) mengenai kewenangan daerah yang menyebutkan bahwa “kewenangan daerah mencakup kewenangan seluruh bidang pemerintahan, kecuali kewenangan bidang politik luar negeri, pertahanan keamanan, peradilan, moneter dan fiscal, agama, serta kewenangan bidang lain”. Sedangkan pasal 88 (1) mengenai kerjasama menyebutkan bahwa daerah dapat mengadakan kerjasama yang saling menguntungkan dengan lembaga/badan di luar negeri, yang diatrur dengan keputusan bersama, kecuali menyangkut kewenangan pemerintah, sebagaimana dimaksud pasal 7. terlepas adanya perdebatan mengenai ketidaksesuaian antara UU Hublu dan Otda terutama dalam hal kewenangan daerah melakukan hubungan dengan pihak luar negeri, atau perdebatan mengenai hubungan luar negeri dan kebijakan luar negeri, dari kedua UU dapat ditafsirkan bahwa peran daerah –daerah akan semakin meningkat dan signifikan dalam menentukan bentuk kerjasama dengan lembaga-lembaga luar negeri. Mampukah Pejambon melakukan tugas koordinator dan kontrolnya yang begitu luas menjadi renungan dan diskusi menarik diusianya yang sudah cukup matang.

Sejalan dengan konsepsi pendekatan intermestik dan sesuai mandat yang tersirat dalam UU Hublu maupun pentingnya asistensi ‘expertise’ Deplu terhadap pemerintah daerah khususnya dalam melaksanakan hubungan kerjasama daerah dengan pihak luar negeri maka tampaknya Deplu perlu untuk melembagakan pendekatan intermestik dan diplomasi publiknyanya dengan “membuka kanwil-nya” didaerah-daerah. Ada banyak keuntungan nyata yang dapat diperoleh apabila Deplu membuka “kanwil” didaerah-daerah otonomi. Antara lain ada sembilan factor yang dapat dicatat yaitu:

(1) pengembangan SDM Deplu yang mampu memahami pendekatan intermestik

(2) Diplomat Indonesia lebih membumi dalam pengertian mampu melihat potensi-potensi daerah yang dapat “dijual” di pasar internasional sebelum ditempatkan di luar negeri. Tercipta suatu nuansa pemahaman yang komprehensif mengenai kebutuhan daerah setempat

(3) Koordinasi kerja Deplu pejambon semakin cepat, efektif dan efesien dalam rangka koordinasi dengan pemerintah daerah

(4) mencegah terjadinya kesalah-pahaman terhadap kerjasama internasional daerah dan lembaga internasional yang akan merugikan daerah yang bersangkutan

(5) mendukung kinerja perwakilan-perwakilan RI yang tersebar di seluruh dunia.

(6) mengantisipasi “gerakan” lembaga-lembaga internasional yang telah “beroperasi” di daerah-daerah.

(7) meningkatkan awareness para stake-holder di daerah-daerah termasuk para NGOs dan private sector mengenai penting sikap kehati-hatian dalam melakukan kerjasama internasional

(8) mempermudah penyusunan kebijakan Deplu yang lebih akurat dan berhasil guna serta membumi.

(9) definisi kepentingan nasional semakin dapat dimaknai dengan jelas. Dan masih panjang daftar keuntungan yang dapat dimanfaatkan apabila deplu dapat memperluas jangkuannya. Hal ini bukan hal yang aneh, toh departemen teknis lainnya seprti Hankam, Agama, Hukum, Keuangan/fiscal telah memainkan peranannya di berbagai daerah.

Dengan strategi “devolution of engagement” tersebut banyak keuntungan lainnya yang sangat berguna sebagai asset ataupun amunisi dalam pelaksananaan diplomasi Indonesia di kancah internasional. Sebaiknya mesin-mesin penggerak diplomasi bergerak dan tersebar diseluruh Indonesia yang disinergikan melalui pejambon ke luar negeri, itulah total diplomasi.

Akhirnya dengan meminjam istilah “soft power”nya Joseph S. Nye. Jr. disini menjadi jelas bahwa potensi daerah merupakan “soft power” yang masih kita miliki yang mungkin dapat memperkuat diplomasi kita dimasa-masa mendatang.

Jakarta, 11 Agustus 2005

Read More..

The Intermestic Affairs: A Theoretical Approach

By Perry Pada

Introduction

Although it remains a debatable argument, it is essential to offer a series of assumptions resulting from global phenomenon such as – the internationalizing of domestic issues which blurs the distinction between domestic and international affairs; the consolidating process of democratization erodes government’s authority while strengthening the principles of governance; the emerging significant role of non-state actors, including mafia and terrorists, and their world-wide networking in reshaping public affairs and attitudes to foreign relations; the growing presence and involvement of ‘foreign institutions’ within the regional domain creating a new track of foreign relations within the provincial level-- all of these in the broadest sense, unless responded to carefully and managed properly, will erode government’s role as the (key) player of governance. To this end, it is then obvious that domestic and international phenomenon is dynamically interactive.

Conceiving that above phenomenon as a series of problems identified in the field of foreign affairs, hence, Indonesia’s foreign affairs approaches indeed require adjustments. This paper puts forward two basic arguments to be considered. First, the era of good governance demands foreign policy should be based upon as wide of a consensus as possible. This means that diplomacy will be effective if only backed by significant sectors of society in its broadest meaning, while retaining for government the role of key player. Hence, it is important to create potential constituencies and social networks associated with specific issues. Second, the working of foreign relations should reflect the dynamic domestic needs and preferences of the nation. Therefore the ability to comprehend the important link between domestic issues and international affairs is very important in order to generate compatible policy and effective diplomacy particularly in this age of globalization. Making domestic policy compatible with international affairs should be the central issue of foreign policy making. In term of terminology used, the linkage or the entanglement of domestic and international affairs caused by globalization is referred to as “intermestic affairs”.

Due to many constraints, this short paper is not attempting to discuss a wide-ranged analysis of an optimum foreign policy determination, that of course needs in-depth and lengthy research in terms of regime and capacity through systemic level analysis. The purpose of this presentation is attempting to expose while analyzing the significant entanglement of Indonesian domestic and international affairs while discussing a brief conceptual framework - the so called “intermestic affairs approach”. It is to find the missing bridge link between domestic and international affairs. At the concluding part of discussion, some preliminary thoughts are offered for further discussion and a clear cut list identifying the strengths and weakness, opportunities and challenges of the intermestic concept.

familiarization with the intermestic foreign affairs approaches

The term intermestic is an abbreviation standing for international and domestic and it is not part of a school of thought but rather it is a kind of strategic management approach in the field of foreign affairs that views the relatively equal important spheres of domestic and international affairs. It is, however, one of many ways of thinking and understanding the work of foreign policy in dealing with domestic issues or the reverse. In the USA, for example, the so called intermestic affairs had been long well acknowledged as a relation between the proper role of Congress and the President in determining policies in the field of foreign affairs. The dynamic pull and push both spheres of concerned issues presented by parliament and the government lead politicians to think in intermestic way. In Europe, UK Minister for EU, Dennis MacShane, deliberately stated that Europe now governed by intermestic politics and define intermestic politic as the era when government policy which was neatly divided into domestic and international politics is over. In his words:

“Europe is now governed by intermestic politics…..Foreign or European Ministers like myself now have to think in intermestic terms …. The new intermestic politics demands a new sense of explanation and discourse to lead citizens away from a narrow defensive, trench-like position on political decision”.

In Indonesia, the terminology and its meaning is first introduced in January 2002 by Indonesian Foreign Minister Dr. Hassan Wirajuda and further gradually bringing it into public policy and gaining of popular support through his various initiatives and activities conducted through the Department of Foreign Affairs. For him, Intermestic affairs is an idea of how to develop a closer linkage issues between international and domestic factors in responding to the global challenges, while simultaneously making use of global opportunities for national benefit; Furthermore, it is an effort to synergize all sectors of society in comprehending substantial issues internally and externally through an integrated diplomatic approach. Therefore, foreign policy actually consists of ideas and views from all sectors of society. The intermestic approach is a part of total diplomacy which was in fact already envisioned since 1945 by the late Dr. Moh Hatta, Indonesian first Vice President, when he clearly stated that foreign policy should be in line with Indonesian domestic politics. In this connection, Harry S. Truman, the US President, ever defined total diplomacy as a diplomacy that views domestic and foreign issues as inseparable.

In this regard, total diplomacy itself, according to Minister Hassan, means the involvement of the entire society – including civil society, the business sector, the NGOs, the mass media, the academe, and indeed the grassroots in conducting diplomacy. All should become involved in a broad-based process. Thus in essence the basic idea of total diplomacy is to shift a monopolistic approach to a pluralistic one through togetherness – a nation-wide foreign policy consensus. In short, ‘intermestic’ can be also interpreted as a dispersion of foreign policy making process and foreign policy open to the public scrutinizing or public transparency and public accountability.

The basic puzzle is to determine to what extent public involvement into the process is able to enhance Indonesian foreign policy and how to bring it about. There is also the question of the central role of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia in conducting initiatives to give meaning to the intermestic affairs concept while reshaping foreign policy. Prior to responding to the question first of all, it is necessary that we understand the concept itself.

The entanglement of Domestic Politics and International Affairs

Theoretically, the entanglement of domestic factors and international factors is well elaborated by James Rosenau’s theory and further developed by Robert Putnam’s theory. How domestic factors influence foreign policy making and vice versa and how to develop a linkage between national and international affairs is an intermestic affairs and approach. The puzzle, then, is how to converge these two spheres national and international in formulating foreign policy. To begin with, in order to initiate our understanding, it is important to have Putnam’s basic idea of two level games theory, He stated that:

“The politics of many international negotiations is conceived as a two-level game. At the International level, domestic groups pursue their interest by pressuring the government to adopt favorable policies, and politicians seek power by constructing coalition among those groups. At the international level, national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign development. Neither of the two games can be ignored by central decision makers, so long as their countries remain interdependent, yet sovereign.”

Putnam’s theory clearly indicates some difficulties of performing diplomacy since first it entails two level spheres of analysis; domestic and international spheres. How to meet these two levels is a puzzle. Therefore, the immediate strategy is to seek a solution based on a consensus. The effort is to formulate a foreign policy which is able to play within two spheres simultaneously. Moreover, foreign policy of a country should be able to address domestic issue while adjusting them to the international forum with the clear goal that foreign policy can be advantageous to domestic interests. As it is elaborated previously, this last part, in the field of foreign affairs is called as “intermestic affairs”.

It is however still debatable whether domestic politics really determine foreign policy or its international relations, or the reverse. The answer is not a simple one, it is depending on accurate calculation and its orientation since some times the answer is both. One among other arguments, the answer is likely to lead to the role of government itself. The important point is to what extend the central decision maker in this case the state itself is able to cope with the domestic and international pressure and come up with a certain strategic foreign policy. To satisfy both spheres, domestic and international, requires a strong state and leadership. However, the analysis of regime and characteristic leadership (Idiosyncratic), which are important, would not be elaborated widely as it is not my intention to do so but rather to identify as the dynamic of domestic politics that support the intermestic affairs idea.

Democracy and Foreign Policy’s Actors

One of the fundamental consequences of democracy is the proliferation of non-state actors which comprise, among others, civil society groups, business circles, academicians. In conjunction with the unfolding of the democratic processes, those non-state actors become more exposed to issues under the domain of foreign policy. As their interests and knowledge of foreign policy-related issues increase, they give more attention to those issues and to persons and institutions involved in foreign policy making.

Democracies recognize the contribution of the non-state actors to the formulation and implementation of national policies, including foreign policy. Under a framework for constructive participation, they contribute to the consensual definition of foreign policy goals. The state listens to their wishes, and on the other hand, the non-state actors are to be supportive of constructive criticism of the state’s policies. Thus, Indonesian foreign policy is to be formulated and implemented under democratic dynamics which is within the frame governance landscape.

From a theoretical perspective, Robert Millner comes up with the important argument to respond the question why domestic politics is important to foreign policy. First, domestic politics tell us how preferences are aggregated and national interest constructed and the second is that domestic politics can help explaining the strategies states adopt to realize their goals. Therefore, domestic level of analysis is significant since the focus will be how to shape national interest. This is important to understand how the state constructs its interest because the state interest subsequently transform to foreign policy. The question is how to meet the above two requirements in order to develop a popular foreign policy, a foreign policy supported by domestic politics since domestic public may be unaware of significant external developments.

To this point, in the democratic sense, given the wide range of non state actors involved in domestic politics, in, central executives through its bureaucratic government or agencies having a special role in mediating domestic and international pressures precisely because they are directly exposed to both spheres, not because they are united on all issues nor because they are insulted from domestic politics. Therefore the role of bureaucratic government is significant in terms of its function as preferences or interests aggregator particularly in policy making process such as policy initiation, policy formulation, policy implementation and policy dissemination and evaluation.

Jakarta, Juni 2005

---

Dr. Luhulima’s presentation paper title “What is Good Governance?” before participants of Sesdilu Batch XXXIV, Department of Foreign Affairs. His presentation was given a best insight for the participants to understand the governance concepts

Bayless Manning: The Congress, the Executive and Intermestic Affairs. Foreign Affairs, January 1977.

Dennis MacShane, UK Minister for Europe. His speech before the Apeldoorn Conference. Amsterdam 29-30 June 2003.

Anne Cullen: Diplomatic Adventurism in Indonesia. The Culture Mandala, 5 No.1 2002

Seminar on “Diplomasi Total di Era Informasi”. A Keynote Speech on Public Relations Seminar delivered by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Hassan Wirajuda. Hotel mandarin Oriental, Jakarta, 20 February 2003. See also a Keynot Speech of the Minister before CSIS. Seminar on “Design Baru Politik Luar negeri Indonesia” Jakarta , 10 August 2005.

Statement by Dr. N. Hassan Wirajuda, Minister for Foreign Affairs before the Indonesian Council on World Affairs (ICWA) & Financial Club of Jakarta. 18 August 2005.

James Rosenou, “Toward the study of National and International Linkages”, in his Linkage Politics: Essays in the Convergence of National and International System. (New York, Free Press, 1969)

Robert D. Putnam., Diplomacy and Domestic Politics. The Logic of Two Level Games. International Organizations Journal. P. 427-460.

DR. Sam Noumoff, Political Science Dept - McGill University. An Interactive E-Mail Discussion.

Read More..

Implementation of MoU Helsinki

By Perry Pada

The implementation of the Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding between Government of Indonesia and Aceh Free Movement (GAM), which previously raised a national debate over its contents, has taken place successfully. However, the successful implementation is amidst the ongoing doubt particularly for the security apparatus as to whether GAM will has abandoned its basic goal of freeing Aceh from the unitary state of Indonesia, which is of course a different question. Although, the characterization of “success” is a preliminary observation which needs to be further proven along with the ongoing process, there are, however, some clear positive indicators to that observation.

The atmosphere all over Aceh province during the implementation has demonstrated a favorable environment that allows people to undertake their daily activities without the insecurity of becoming victims of violence. It can be observed that public places in the city such as markets, shops, side walk cafes are currently returning to normal. Of course we cannot deny that there are some incidents which occur during the process but those are not sufficiently significant to be considered as hurdles to the ongoing process but acts of ordinary criminals which can be handled properly by the Indonesian police on the ground.

The above afore mentioned picture has barely been evident in Aceh before the peace agreement which was signed five months ago. Obviously, all parties involved had been showing their positive commitment to fully comply with what they had agreed upon in Helsinki on 15 August 2005. A numbers of arguments have been forthcoming to what comprises this successful compliance; among others, the clear assumptions are: (1) for Indonesia side, the internationalization of the Aceh case cannot be solved by Indonesia alone, notwithstanding the fact that the unity of the state is above all considerations; (2) accepted the GAM as a part of the unitary state is a sufficient for the nation; (3) eliminating International pressures particularly on the Human rights issue in Aceh is an important step for the nation.

Therefore, the very logical option is to embrace the movement within the national borders with any conflict occurring in the near future considered as an internal matter. On the other hand, for the movement itself, (1) this is considered as a protracted armed conflict that can never be end by a total victory owing to insufficient foreign support for maintaining the struggle; (2) the idea of having international support of the movement for the creation of an independent state is likely not a realistic option under the present circumstances. Therefore, the alternative strategy is a mutant one, which is a self government by consolidating its political movement within the unitary state of Indonesia with a hope that the movement would subsequently be able to win the local election. For both sides, this is likely a win-win solution since no one is loosing its face before the international community, however, presumably for the long haul, the hidden agendas remain intact. Both sides fully realize that any actions that violate the MoU process can endanger their future options and strategies as elaborated above. To this end, for both sides, currently maintaining a peaceful condition in a careful manner by complying with the MoU is clearly a strategy to gain international support and recognition. In other words consolidate their present gains as the pre-condition for moving to the next stage.

The positive conditions in Aceh during the implementation of the Helsinki agreement is also due to the great responsibility and efforts put forward by the international community involved within the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) which consist of almost more or less 223 personnel dominated by civilian professional workers representing the European Union (121) and some ASEAN countries (102) in assisting and monitoring the peace process. AMM’s role to the process is important to supervise the peace process while pressuring both sides to keep their commitment in fulfilling their obligation as stipulated in the MoU. Their existence and influence has a great role in contributing to the successful accomplishment of the Helsinki MoU, particularly for making GAM meet its obligations in conformity with the MoU. The AMM has helped create a positive atmosphere and has monitored the peace process in the spirit of the MoU.

The steady progress of the implementation likely can be successfully maintained and carried forward to the next stage. At this point, it is important to note that the EU contribution is significant in making the Helsinki peace process proceed smoothly not only for their participation to AMM but also EU financial contribution to the “capacity building and re-integration process” in Aceh. According to the EU web-site, EC already contributed around 24 million Euros during the implementation of the Helsinki MoU which together with others support the implementation and assist the re-integration process including the amnesty package and the empowerment of local people’s economy affected by the conflict.

To date the process has peacefully transpired, with all parties full cooperation according to the phases set to measure the progress of implementing the MoU. There are four priorities among many clauses stipulated in the MoU, namely; first the decommissioning of 840 GAM weapons; second the relocation of Indonesian armed forces/police; third the re-integration of GAM members whilst the demobilization of 3.000 GAM active members, the so called, the Aceh National Army (TNA), and the provision of financial facilities to ex GAM as well.

Up to the end of December 2005, as reported by the AMM and echoed by local and national news papers the main four phases of the agreed plan namely the decommissioning of GAM Weapons, the re-location/re-deployment the non organic armed forces and police, have been successfully completed. GAM already handed over a total of 1023 weapons accepted and demobilized its 3000 thousand troops, therefore the decommissioning and demobilization process has already been completed by GAM at the fourth phase ended by 31 December 2005, whilst by 20 December 2005, the Government of Indonesia has been relocated / withdrawn 31.731 armed forces and police to end the fourth phase. The government of Indonesia, inconformity with the MoU, has granted amnesty and remission for a total of 1735 to ex GAM to be free from detention while also distributed financial facilities for the 3.000 GAM’s active member as a part of the re-integration process. While the process of drafting a new law on the governing of Aceh is positively under way, It has been reported that The Government expert team has handed over the draft to the Legislature for further review and approval. The implementation of the Helsinki MoU has so far been a positive achievement.

What happens next is largely dependent on the goodwill of the central government to make use of the peaceful conditions by letting Acehnes exercise their own self government process within the framework of a Unitary State of Indonesia through fair and transparent local elections next April 2006.

Writer is alumni of McGill University – Montreal

Read More..