The third Indonesian presidential debate on
international politics and national defence, held on 22 June, has shed further
light on the foreign policy platforms of presidential hopefuls Prabowo Subianto
and Joko Widodo (‘Jokowi’).
Both candidates are offering two entirely different grand designs
for foreign policy.
Prabowo’s foreign policy outlook is introverted and
revolves around the old-school New Order rhetoric of internal stability and
territorial integrity. It is focused on maintaining and accumulating Indonesian
power, while promoting international clout through domestic prosperity.
Prabowo’s foreign policy platform prioritises domestic issues, leaving the
international realm in the periphery.
On the other hand, Jokowi’s foreign policy outlook
appears to be more extroverted. It focuses on international clout and
Indonesia’s power projection capabilities — expanding Indonesia’s power to the
oceans, the skies and cyberspace, with an outward-oriented focus on economic
competitiveness. It is a foreign policy platform that sees Indonesia’s new and
enlarged sphere of influence in the international realm.
For an insight into the candidates’ policies, observers
need to look at the intellectual teams backing each
presidential hopeful. Jokowi’s team consists of crème de la crème
intellectuals with stellar track records, well-versed in international
relations, security and defence — an advantage that backfired in the
presidential candidates’ debate. Jokowi sounded scripted, his two-metre-long
notes revealing a poorly-rehearsed intellectual ventriloquism. Understandably,
Jokowi was trying to keep up and made the honest mistake of presenting himself
as an academic expert, instead of presenting himself as a macro-strategist and
a creator of national solidarity. Statements on hybrid wars, cyber wars, drone
technology and primary weapons defence system(Alutsista) ensured that
most of his audience was just as lost as he was on the subject of defence.
Despite his own foreign policy platform not
even sounding remotely ‘international’, Prabowo called out Jokowi’s platform
for being too theoretical and impractical. Prabowo’s team consists of the
intellectual underdogs, but he — not his team of advisors — will be the one
calling the shots. Prabowo repeatedly made the point that he will ignore his
advisors and agree with Jokowi on issues where they both share similar views.
Unfortunately, ‘agreeableness’ might not compensate for the lack of creative
thinking and alternative policies from his camp.
In terms of Indonesia’s military build-up, each
candidate’s foreign policy will dictate adifferent strategy.
Prabowo’s strategy will consist of military and armament
build-up, with less attention paid to its quality and relevance to threats. He
will focus on a land-based military build-up and on strengthening the
Indonesian military’s territorial command structure. Prabowo will oversee the
prioritisation of the army at the expense of the navy and air force. This can be discerned from his strong position on
the lack of battalions in many Indonesian districts, his reference to the
territorial command structure and his insistence upon the value, usefulness and
relevance of Indonesia’s Leopard tanks.
Jokowi’s military build-up strategy will consist of a
relative downsizing of the military and armament build-up with more attention
paid to attaining superior quality, technology and relevance to threats. His
strategy will see a more centralised and coordinated military structure, as
well as more synchronised cross-theatre operational capabilities between the
army, the navy and the air force.
In terms of accommodating foreign interests, Prabowo made it clear that he will
continue President Yudhoyono’s overtly pro-West foreign policy, citing the
‘million friends and zero enemies’ rhetoric. Just like Suharto and Yudhoyono,
Prabowo will probably adopt an unthinking pro-West attitude. Jokowi’s team,
however, seems more capable of devising alternative and creative policies and
more capable of making cool-headed calculations on the national interest — even
at the expense of Western powers.
Prabowo’s plan is more conservative, grounded in
pragmatism and feasibility, making it the least destabilising and threatening
to Western interests and regional stability. In contrast, Jokowi’s platform is
more radical, ambitious and optimistic. It is breathtakingly progressive — to
the point of advocating for ‘leaps’ in military technology — which also makes
it potentially more destabilising to Western interests and regional stability.
When asked about Australia’s spying and
incursion into Indonesian waters, both candidates said trust was an issue. But
Prabowo went the extra mile to defuse the very tense
atmosphere by joking that the audience was much more ‘hostile’ than the
presidential candidates themselves.
Prabowo’s ‘inward-looking’ military build-up may avoid a
regional arms race, though it promises a check on China’s power should it lay
claim to Indonesian territories.
But Jokowi’s team might be more experimental and open to
new possibilities. Jokowi might even consider more provocative policies such as
brandishing Indonesia’s Islamic credentials over
its democratic identity, taking up the issue of Palestine, growing out of ASEAN and playing the role of regional balancer
and imposing a maritime toll fee — the last one would surely raise objections
from the West.
Even with modest economic growth
projections, an Indonesian military build-up is inevitable. Both candidates,
running on nationalist platforms,
desire a more powerful Indonesian
military that can project its power. The only difference is that Prabowo
prefers a powerful — yet stationary — military presence initially and power
projection capabilities later on, while Jokowi seems to prefer it the other way
around.
Pierre Marthinus and Isidora Happy Apsari are
respectively the executive director and vice executive director for the
Marthinus Academy in Jakarta.
No comments:
Post a Comment