Indonesia’s Peacekeeping as a Foreign Policy Focus

Indonesia has sent some 29,000 troops to UN peacekeeping missions since 1957, making them a formidable soft-power asset. (Antara Photo/Noveradika)

Indonesia and other members of the international community commemorated the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers on May 29.

This was an occasion to salute the more than 111,000 peacekeepers serving in 16 missions in some of the world’s most volatile and dangerous environments. More than 29,000 Indonesian peacekeepers have participated in dozens of international efforts over the past six decades in countries all over the world. Indonesia has helped provide instrumental support to restore peace and security in areas devastated by conflict.

Presidential candidates Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo should have given mention, in their third debate on foreign policy and defense, the solid record that Indonesia has in its participation in international peacekeeping missions when they touched on the issue of Indonesia’s role in global peace.

Raising this point would not only have garnered them Brownie points with the public, but would also provide greater assurance to the Indonesian Military (TNI) that the new government will invest more to boost the country’s participation in global peace missions.

Since 1957, 29,178 Indonesians have served in more than 50 multinational peacekeeping operations, suggesting a pro-active foreign policy by Jakarta. It is true that foreign policy begins at home, when Prabowo repeatedly said that foreign policy should begin with a strong economy and military, and insisting that Indonesia would not win the world’s respect without it.

Nor was it wrong when Joko said the South China Sea dispute had nothing to do with Indonesia because Indonesia was not a claimant in the dispute.

However, both were wrong when suggesting that Indonesia’s foreign policy should prioritize either domestic or international matters only.

A balanced perspective of Indonesia’s foreign policy, pointing to the importance of Indonesia’s role in solving domestic as well as international problems, should be adhered to by the presidential candidates. James Rosenau, in his book “Scientific Study of Foreign Policy” (1980), noted that foreign policy goals would be best served by the balanced treatment of domestic and international affairs.

Assuming that Indonesia perceives itself as a “mover” in international peace, it actually attempts to gain respect from members of the international community for its policy of transporting its ways of solving international problems from one place to another place. 

This underlines the constitutional mandate and the everlasting issue of maintaining international peace and security.

Both Prabowo and Joko constantly mentioned the word “peace” in their third debate, but they forgot to let the public know that Indonesia has at its disposal the Indonesian Peace and Security Center (IPSC) in Sentul, Bogor, which boasts a peacekeeping facility. The IPSC ensures the persistent relevance and importance of Indonesia’s contribution to peacekeeping operations, in particular under the UN umbrella. Indonesia is the 10th-biggest contributor to UN peacekeeping forces.

The next government should craft out a strategic concept for global peacekeeping missions, through which it can aim to build a hub for the peacekeeping network in the region. The next five years should at least be seen as the period in which Indonesia tabled new elements in its agenda of cooperation with a view to forging a more integrated and multi-layered framework for conflict management. It is through such a mechanism that Indonesia, through its participation in UN peacekeeping missions, may apply its soft power to help reduce, if not resolve, armed conflict.

The above objectives are unlikely to be achieved unless the next government has a very clear strategic vision on international peace. The vision, however, should be as realistic as possible. The vision should be specific rather than a vague idea about the activities in the future. For example, in the context of international relations, a vision to forge international cooperation might be considered too broad, while a vision to participate and contribute to international peacekeeping missions in the future seems to be more focused and has the potential to be workable.

This means that when Indonesia designs strategic visions of international peace, it must pay attention to not only the environment in which the vision will be implemented, but also its capacity to carry out such a vision.

This is the litmus test for the next president. Meaning that he has to demonstrate the capability to adjust the new Indonesia’s international peace strategy, if any, with the long-term needs of its foreign policy.

The new president should recognize the fact that international politics is anarchic in nature, but cooperation in building peace is always possible. The next government should adhere to the view that Indonesia’s future role is not merely to keep the peace in a broad sense, but peace itself should pave the way for a political process toward democracy.

By Bantarto Bandoro on 12:01 pm Jul 03, 2014

 Bantarto Bandoro is a senior lecturer at the School of Defense Strategy at the Indonesian Defense University and founder of the Institute for Defense and Strategic Research (IDSR) in Jakarta