China-US Showdown and Indonesian Foreign Policy

TWO TO TANGO. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is reportedly not at the same wavelength with his Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa on the US plan to build military base at Darwin, Australia. In contrast to the cucumber-cool Yudhoyono, the Australia-educated Marty insisted that the US Darwin plan would increase tension in Asia-Pacific region and create a "vicious cycle of mistrust" among neighborhood countries. 

(Photo by Ikhwan Yanuar)

Has Indonesian foreign policy transgressed from the initiative of the country’s founding fathers?

As the recent string of events in Asia-Pacific shows, the relevancy of Indonesian foreign policy of Free and Active (bebas aktif), which was once a landmark on how Indonesia dealt with its foreign policy matters in its post-independence era, is currently in question.

Strategically located in the heart of Asia-Pacific, a region where countries are currently busy stockpiling their economic wealth and bracing against each other to strengthen regional influence, early signs showed that Indonesia is currently in the brink of being insubstantial.

To lead is easier said to be done, especially when Indonesia is living in an embattled region whose influence is being fought by two powerful forces such as China and United States. Yet there is no doubt that Indonesia could do much, much better rather than “sit down and watch the battle between two giants unfolds” as its present stance suggests.

As the United States proceeds with its plan to establish a military base in Darwin, Australia, deploying roughly 2,500 US marines in the area, the standpoint of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono somewhat shows that Indonesia responds lightly to the issue.   

Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa, who previously denounced the Darwin plan as “creating a vicious cycle of tensions and mistrust”, was reportedly at odds with his boss Yudhoyono. Apparently, Yudhoyono sided with US President Barack Obama, the Darwin plan’s initiator who was reportedly irked with Marty’s statements and directly assured Yudhoyono during the ASEAN forum in Bali that the Darwin military base, which was only 850-kilometer away from Indonesia, was “nothing special”.

Imagine having Soekarno instead of Yudhoyono as president; then the US would think more than twice to establish a military base in Darwin.

Economics affairs might not be the best expertise of Soekarno, who proclaimed Indonesian independence and became the country’s first president yet ended up being toppled from power because of his clumsy economic management. In terms of foreign affairs, however, Soekarno’s track record is historical: He successfully put Indonesia, a young country that only gained independence a few years back at that time, in the world map.

Despite his political ideology that was more frequently associated with communism and Soviet Union, Soekarno, impressively, still managed to earn reverence from the US as well. During his presidency, Soekarno was even deemed as a daunting figure to the US. At that time under the leadership of John F. Kennedy, the US tried to “win over” Soekarno from the Soviet Union’s hands by inviting the president to Washington and providing Indonesia with billions of dollars in civilian and military aid in the early 1960s.

Soekarno, however, impressively managed to remain impartial on the Cold War that pits the US and the Soviet Union, even leading the plan to intercede the hostilities between the two countries by establishing the Non-Aligned Movement (Gerakan Non-Blok) whose members comprised of third-world countries’ leaders.

Reflecting Indonesia’s scrawny stance on the US Darwin military base issue: does Yudhoyono lean to the United States? Or is he merely being insubstantial due to his weak leadership, especially when he was benchmarked to Soekarno? If both questions are answered with a “yes”, then it’s fair to say that Indonesia is not independent and not active –thus going astray from the nation’s highly acclaimed Free and Active foreign policy.

As the last troops of US military step out from their exhausting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2012 and after will be the years when the US will focus its foreign policies –as well as its multi-trillion dollar military budget– from Middle East to Asia-Pacific.  

Bolstering influence in the Asia-Pacific and ASEAN region is especially necessary for the US considering Obama is currently eyeing to execute the ambitious Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP Free Trade Agreement); an economic deal that will include the US in the free trade agreement with ASEAN.

So far, six countries in the Asia Pacific region –China, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand– have implemented free trade agreements with the ASEAN. Considering ASEAN’s massive population and market potential, it is thus a rational strategy for the US to follow their footsteps in the mission to restore their tattering economy.

The world may usher the era of power transition with growing economies in the Asia-Pacific region, at the same time when the economies in the Europe and the US are declining. The boisterous economy of China’s especially leads Asia-Pacific region to become the world’s new centre of gravity, while ASEAN’s strong domestic market was also perceived as crucial to save the recession-plagued economies of Western countries.

For Indonesia, a nation that is frequently referred as the central figure in the ASEAN region, the year of 2012 would be pivotal. For Indonesian President Yudhoyono, this should be the year to revive the Free and Active foreign policy in the upcoming China-US encounter whose battleground will take place at the coruscating region of Asia-Pacific. 

KPK Selection Process: When a Serial Killer Chose His Own Team of Detectives

OVERLOOKED. Yunus Husein, the former chief of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) was not chosen by lawmakers to lead Indonesia's top anticorruption body allegedly due to his fearsome reputation as "the man who knew the balance of your bank account".  

(photo by Arief Manurung)

The House of Representatives complex at Senayan, Jakarta became a stage of another failure of democracy after House lawmakers from Commission III overseeing legal affairs named its four new leaders for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

When I attended the voting process on Friday last week, it was a strange view that there were few –or if even any– journalists, NGO representatives, commission’s staffs, and even security guards who were seen clapping in the midst of noisy applause and loud celebration among the lawmakers after the Commission’s chairman read aloud the result.

The disappointment of the neutrals who witnessed the voting process and follow the issue thoroughly was clear: the current KPK composition is a massive letdown, and the lawmakers’ decision did not represent them and their fellow Indonesian people.

The appointee of lawyer Abraham Samad, National Police Commission member Adnan Pandupraja, and senior prosecutor Zulkarnaen to fill the KPK top posts had raised eyebrows on whether the House lawmakers have already done their main task of representing the public properly.

The government selection committee tasked to assess the eight candidates merely placed Abraham, Zulkarnaen, and Pandu as underdogs in the race, placing the three of them as the fifth-, sixth, and seventh-best candidate in its ranking, respectively.

There is no doubt that the naming of lawyer and antigraft activist Bambang Widjojanto was no more than "sweetener" to play down public controversy in the issue. In rational way of thinking, there is no explainable reason for the lawmakers to eliminate the flawless Bambang, who the selection committee assessed as its best candidate and thus was viewed as the heavy favorite in the race among the public.

Although it could hardly be described as the worst composition for KPK, the current one is without doubt would be a setback for the country's top anticorruption commission.

Among the five new executives of KPK (the four new executives plus the incumbent Busyro Muqoddas), the absence of a financial and auditing expert is hardly understandable.

In many occasions, lawmakers repeatedly uttered about the importance for KPK to focus not only on prosecuting corruptors but also on preventing corruption practices to occur. While prosecuting would punish corruptors and instigate fears among the people, preventive measures, the lawmakers argued, would make people who want to commit corruption were “unable” to do such practices and reduce corruption tally in the long run.

But why does the KPK’s new five executives comprise one prosecutor (Zulkarnaen) and four lawyers (Abraham, Bambang Busyro, Pandupraja), yet there was not any expert who has background in financial and auditing investigation?

Among the eight names proposed by the government selection panel to the House, there were two candidates who met the criterion: Yunus Husein, the former chief of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK); and Handoyo Sudrajat, the KPK internal affairs director. The two were rated highly and deemed as frontrunners, too, as Yunus and Handoyo was ranked by the selection panel as the second- and fourth-best candidates in its ranking, respectively.

If lawmakers were talking about preventive measures, then they should definitely choose person with expertise in auditing and financial investigations. They could, without doubt, strengthen the KPK’s supervision system or even established a new scheme that could limit the corruptors’ assets-movement –and surely potential corruptors would have to think twice to commit fraudulent practices as they had their bank accounts watched closely.

While lawmakers argued that the rejection of Yunus was related to his close ties with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the ruling Democratic Party; but this argument is certainly baseless. In this leaked document of the candidates’ review, the selection panel rated Yunus as the third-highest candidate in the attribute of “independency” after Bambang and Abdullah.

How could Yunus –who garnered 105 compared to the newly elected KPK chief Abraham who earned 94 in “independency”– was rated highly in that criterion if he leaned to certain political figure and thus was not independent?   

In addition to the inexplicable omission of both Yunus and Handoyo, the exclusion of a bold figure such as Abdullah Hehamahua was also a loss in immeasurable extent. He was valiant, independent, and –as an officer at the KPK– knew exactly the inside problems of the KPK and how to fix them.

The only ones who dislike a great anticorruption fighter like Abdullah perhaps would be the corruptors themselves. Portraying Abdullah as a fearless figure would be an understatement. He was described at his best with his own words, which he uttered during his fit-and-proper test with the lawmakers: "I want to be murdered by corruptors."

From the politics-ridden selection process for the new KPK leaders, we could see the major flaw of our widely applauded democracy. That is, when the personal interests of our directly elected politicians set aside the country’s anticorruption agenda, which in fact should become the main priority.

In Indonesia, it was hilarious to know that the corruptors themselves were given the mandate to choose the leaders for the country’s anticorruption body. It is very much the same with a serial killer who has the authority to choose the team of detectives that would investigate his case –surely, it would be rational choice for him to pick the less-skilled detectives to avoid getting caught. 

New KPK Leaders: Rational Selection or Politics?

This leaked document obtained by The Jakarta Post reveals the detailed scores* of the government-tasked selection panel which was assigned to assess the eight candidates competing to become the new Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) executives. 

 

	Leadership	Integrity	Competency	Independency	Total score	Decision
Bambang	95	96	92	92	450	Chosen
Yunus	89	92.5	91	87.5	432	No
Abdullah	82.5	90	81	88	410	No
Handoyo	76	86	84	87.5	401	No
Abraham	75	79	73	78	367	Chosen
Zulkarnaen	77.5	79	81	78	379	Chosen
Pandupraja	72.5	75	72.5	73	352	Chosen
Arianto	82	70	83	71	367.5	No

* source: Government-tasked Selection Panel

*ranking was sorted by candidate's integrity, not overall score

*using conversion score of maximum 120. i.e: Bambang received 114 for 'leadership' hence his conversion score was 0.95

 

Based on the ranking, the selection panel recommended four names to the House of Representatives to be chosen as the new KPK executives: lawyer Bambang Widjojanto, former Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) chief Yunus Husein, KPK advisor Abdullah Hehamahua, and KPK internal affairs director Handoyo Sudrajat

In choosing the new KPK four executives, however, the recommendation of the selection panel -which comprises of academics, psychologists, legal experts and former KPK leader- was apparently 'neglected' by the House of Representatives Commission III overseeing legal affairs. As the consequence, doubts emerged: Were the chosen candidates really the bests among the rests? Or was the selection process merely politics?