Resources of Indonesian soft power diplomacy

Siswo Pramono, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Mon, 06/28/2010 9:20 AM A|A|A| http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/28/resources-indonesian-soft-powerdiplomacy.html Power, according to Joseph S. Nye (2004), is your ability to influence the behavior of others. Soft power is your ability to become attractive so that you can co-opt others. The main resources of your soft power are your foreign policy, culture and value. As the foreign policies of regional powers are geared toward the formation of regional culture and values, which make up the template of Asian political architecture, the soft-power contest in Asia begins. What are we going to sell? The Asian market demands values that are both universal in character (to help Asians integrate with globalization) and original in nature (to help Asians preserve their cultural identity). Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh commented: The Indian influence across much of Asia has been one of culture, language, religion, ideas and values, not of bloody conquest. Does that not also make India a global superpower, thought not in the traditional sense? Can this not be the power we seek in the next century? (www.pmindia.nic.in). Yes, the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism to East Asia represented a fraction of Indias investment on soft power dated back in the first century. Now it is likely the time for India to harvest its dividends. India then established the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) in countries with large Indian diaspora communities. The Asian market is now flooded by Bollywood products and Indian contemporary art, including Indian fashion (Kirsten Bound (et.al.), 2007. Cultural Diplomacy). In the same token, China has established 100 Confucius institutes abroad to promote culture and knowledge about China. The name Confucius is deliberately chosen since Confucius (551-479 BCE) has always been associated with a system of philosophy that has been internalized in the Asian cultures for more than a millennium. Meanwhile, the National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language NOCFL, has been preparing 10,000 volunteers to teach Mandarin in 23 countries. Thus, for China and India, the issue at stake is not the fact that they are now the emerging powers in global politics, but how, if geopolitics matters, they could gain acceptance, and support, from their fellow Asians. If Indonesia is to embark on the contest of soft power, it should look for a home-grown, credible value which is attractive to the Asian market. We need to trace our perceived cultural resources back during the glorious era of the Kingdom of Majapahit (1293-1527).

Majapahit, as a decentralized archipelagic kingdom stretching from Samudra (in North Sumatra) to Wanin (the western coast of Papua), with an effective sphere of influence covering the whole of Southeast Asia, as documented in Ngarakretgama (1365), is, for me, a historical template for tmodern Indonesia. Majapahit had been successful in coping with the tension of a multicultural society and of three competing religions Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam (which was by then a fast growing minority). While on many occasions Majapahit resorted to military power, the main mantra of the political integration was the value of accommodative pluralism. The value was translated into a Siva-Buddha syncretism, which was then adopted to become the philosophical foundation of the kingdom and its foreign relations. The syncretic policy well documented in Mpu Tantulars Kakawin Sutasoma can be extracted into two sentences: mangkng Jinatwa kalawan Siwatatwa tunggal (Buddha and Siva essentially teach the same truth), and thus, bhineka tunggal ika tan hana dharmma mangwra (while difference, the teachings essentially present one truth, since there is hardly a diversified truth). The value of accommodative pluralism was, again, apparent during the great transformation of the archipelago from Siva-Buddha to Islam, as depicted in the book Babad Tanah Jawi 1647 (The History of the Land of Java 1647). The dramatic event was captured when the last king of Majapahit, Brawijaya, relinquished his power to his son, Raden Patah, the first Sultan of Demak, who was converted to Islam. The value of accommodative pluralism survived the era of transformation because not only was Islam then considered as sharing the one Truth with Buddhism and Sivaism, but also the propagation of Islam was spearheaded by Sufism (Tasawwuf). Indeed, Babad Tanah Jawi attributes the Islamization of Java to the Sufism of Wali Songo (the Nine Saints). And, interestingly, the book begins with a chapter, depicting the kings of Java as both the descendants of Nabi Adam (Islamic attribution to the first man Adam) and the Hindu gods (i.e. Brahma, Visnu, Siva, etc). The Demak Mosque is the monument of such accommodative pluralism. While the mosque is a place of worship for the Muslims, its architecture features Hindu tradition. The structure of the mosque is sustained by the eight pillars of Majapahit and the mosque itself is devoted as the resting place for the coat of arms Surya Majapahit (www.demakkab.go.id). The Sultanate of Mataram (1588-1681), as successor of the Sultanates of Pajang and Demak, continued the syncretic policy. While, from time to time, invoking the glory of Majapahit, Sultan Agung of Mataram and his successors were engaged in bitter campaigns against orthodox Muslim rulers who strive for a more religiously pure Islam (R. Jay in B. Effendy, 2005). During the decolonization period, Sukarno promoted the value of accommodative pluralism by promulgating Pancasila as the philosophical foundation of the nation. Following the

failure of the Jakarta Charter, which attempted to inject sharia into our state ideology, the value of pluralism was finally vested in the 1945 Constitution. The beauty of this story is that, after 600 years of its inception, Bhineka Tunggal Ika (unity in diversity), which was originally a Siva-Buddhist syncretism, was finally adopted as a peremptory norm of modern Indonesia a nation state with the largest Muslim population. As Indonesia respected the power of pluralism, decolonization of Nederlands Oost Indi gave birth to a Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. India failed to respect such power, and decolonization of the British Raj-led India to the path of bloody religious partition (with a note, though, that India has developed into a secular democracy). Bhineka Tunggal Ika should thus become the inspiring source of our soft power diplomacy and a home-grown value worth selling in the Asian market.

Indonesia: A new `middle power'

Santo Darmosumarto, Jakarta | Fri, 10/30/2009 1:38 PM A|A|A| http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/10/30/indonesia-a-new-middle-power039.html There has been some talk among academic circles about the coming ascendancy of a new power in the Asia-Pacific, which has been aptly branded KIA (Korea-Indonesia-Australia). The argument, as voiced among others by Jonas Parello-Plesner, a Scandinavian foreignpolicy adviser, is that although undertakings of powerhouses such as China, India, Japan and the US would continue to dominate in the region, a new order is very much in the making, with Korea, Indonesia and Australia playing greater roles as "middle powers". Can Indonesia be a "middle power"? Some may smirk at this suggestion, arguing that Indonesia is in no capacity to play such a role, considering its problems at home, let alone its dubious recognition abroad. Meanwhile, others may say that to aspire to become a "middle power" is akin to aspiring for mediocrity. However, all things considered, Indonesia's rise to international stardom should indeed be pursued through playing the role of a "middle power". In doing so, Indonesia would not only enhance its image as a responsible member of the international community, but also further strengthen its national resolve in conducting a "free and active foreign policy". Parello-Plesner argues that Korea, Indonesia and Australia have every potential to play larger roles not only in the region's economy, but also in international politics. All three countries are members of the G20, which has gained prominence in recent efforts to tackle the global economic crisis. Indonesia's basis for middle-power status stems from its success in domestic political reform, in particular, the embracing of democracy by its multiethnic, multireligious society.

In addition, by continuing to pose economic growth in the face of the current global economic crisis, Indonesia is now in a better position to confidently assert its independent status and active diplomacy on the world stage. In recent times, middle-power leadership has been advocated by academics and foreign policymakers in Canada and Australia to fill in the power vacuum left after the end of the Cold War. However, the notion itself dates back as far as the 15th century, when Italian philosopher Giovanni Botero described "middle powers" as states possessing "sufficient strength and authority to stand on their own without the need of help from others". Of course, in today's globalized world, it is difficult to imagine a country surviving in complete isolation and autarky. Nonetheless, the spirit of Botero's definition remains true in that middle powers constitute countries that have a recognized prominent place within the international system. Some define middle powers as countries whose material capabilities, such as military and economic powers, are neither great nor small, yet which seek to bolster international institutions as a means to manage power relations. In addition, middle power leadership is defined by a country's political clout within a region or sub-region, as well as its ability to show expertise and push forward particular issues that are of interest to the international community. Therefore, the strength of middle powers draw not only on their actual material capabilities, but also their geographical positioning vis-*-vis other countries and functional status in international relations. Based on such criteria, Indonesia fits nicely into the category of a middle power. Although Indonesia may not be as powerful as some great powers, it cannot be equaled to smaller countries in the international community. At the same time, while recognizing Indonesia's middle-power material, it is important to stress that having a "middle-sized" economy and/or a "middle-sized" military does not necessarily translate to Indonesia legitimately calling itself a middle power. To be regarded as such and to make middle-power status actually mean something, Indonesia needs to "act" like a middle power. In other words, the existence of a middle power is defined by its essence - Indonesia is a middle power only if it engages the world actively. The question remaining is thus why should we need to "brand" our foreign policy and diplomacy as that of a middle power? The concern is that by branding Indonesia's role in international affairs as such, we would confine ourselves to a box, limiting our ability to maneuver not only in pursuit of our national interests, but also the general interest of the international community. Others may argue that by being a middle power, Indonesia would relegate itself to inferiority. At the same time, a middle-power status would distinguish Indonesia from smaller powers,

thus alienating it from countries whose interest in Indonesia is supposedly represented in the international arena. All things considered, however, branding is important in identity building. To generate a new identity for Indonesia's post-Cold War, post-reform foreign policy and diplomacy, it is essential that some level of branding be used in its approach to the world. To brand itself as middle power does not constitute subservience to the politics of great powers. Instead, it should be seen as a humble recognition of Indonesia's limitations, and that despite these limitations, Indonesia is determined to play an active role in pushing for change and progress in the world. Also, far from alienating itself from the developing world, a middle-power status ensures Indonesia has role in mediating and linking the small and great world powers. In his speech at Harvard University, President Susilo Bambang Yu-dhoyono proclaimed the 21st Century was "the century of soft power", outlining "Nine Imperatives" in creating the world anew through soft power. As a middle power, and lacking the economic and military capacity to exert hard power, it is through middle-power leadership (using soft-power means) that Indonesia's foreign policy and diplomacy can achieve greater success. And President Yudhoyono has opened the path towards this very role for Indonesia in the years to come. The writer is an Indonesian diplomat. This is a personal opinion.

Think Again: Soft Power

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2006/02/22/think_again_soft_power

In 1990, Foreign Policy was the first journal to publish the concept soft power in an article I wrote. Since then, the idea has circled the globe, as a quick Google search will show. A British rock band, Ladytron, even uses it as the title of a song in its new album. But as it has moved into common usage, the term has been stretched and twisted, sometimes beyond recognition. What exactly is soft power and how useful is it in dealing with todays challenges?
BY JOSEPH S. NYE JR. | FEBRUARY 23, 2006

Soft Power Is Cultural Power Partly. Power is the ability to alter the behavior of others to get what you want. There are basically three ways to do that: coercion (sticks), payments (carrots), and attraction (soft power). British historian Niall Ferguson described soft power as non-traditional forces such as cultural and commercial goodsand then promptly dismissed it on the grounds that its, well, soft. Of course, the fact that a foreigner drinks Coca-Cola or wears a Michael Jordan T-shirt

does not in itself mean that America has power over him. This view confuses resources with behavior. Whether power resources produce a favorable outcome depends upon the context. This reality is not unique to soft-power resources: Having a larger tank army may produce military victory if a battle is fought in the desert, but not if it is fought in swampy jungles such as Vietnam. A countrys soft power can come from three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority). Consider Iran. Western music and videos are anathema to the ruling mullahs, but attractive to many of the younger generation to whom they transmit ideas of freedom and choice. American culture produces soft power among some Iranians, but not others. Economic Strength Is Soft Power No. In a recent article on options for dealing with Iran, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation refers to soft power options such as economic sanctions. But there is nothing soft about sanctions if you are on the receiving end. They are clearly intended to coerce and are thus a form of hard power. Economic strength can be converted into hard or soft power: You can coerce countries with sanctions or woo them with wealth. As Walter Russell Mead has argued, economic power is sticky power; it seduces as much as it compels. Theres no doubt that a successful economy is an important source of attraction. Sometimes in real-world situations, it is difficult to distinguish what part of an economic relationship is comprised of hard and soft power. European leaders describe other countries desire to accede to the European Union (EU) as a sign of Europes soft power. Turkey today is making changes in its human rights policies and domestic law to adjust to EU standards. How much of this change is driven by the economic inducement of market access, and how much by the attractiveness of Europes successful economic and political system? Its clear that some Turks are replying more to the hard power of inducement, whereas others are attracted to the European model of human rights and economic freedom. Soft Power Is More Humane Than Hard Power Not necessarily. Because soft power has been hyped as an alternative to raw power politics, it is often embraced by ethically minded scholars and policymakers. But soft power is a description, not an ethical prescription. Like any form of power, it can be wielded for good or ill. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, after all, possessed a great deal of soft power in the eyes of their acolytes. It is not necessarily better to twist minds than to twist arms. If I want to steal your money, I can threaten you with a gun, or I can swindle you with a get-rich-quick scheme in which you invest, or I can persuade you to hand over your estate as part of a spiritual journey. The third way is through soft power, but the result is still theft. Although soft power in the wrong hands can have horrible consequences, it can in some cases offer morally superior means to certain goals. Contrast the consequences of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.s choice of soft power with Yasir Arafats choice of the gun. Gandhi and King were able to attract moderate majorities over time, and the consequences were impressive both in effectiveness and in ethical terms. Arafats strategy of hard power, by contrast, killed innocent Israelis and drove Israeli moderates into the arms of the hard right. Hard power Can Be measured, and Soft Power Cannot False. Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland has complained that soft power, like globalization, is too elastic a concept to be useful. Like others, he fails to understand the

difference between power resources and behavior. In fact, its quite possible to quantify sources of soft power. One can, for example, measure and compare the cultural, communications, and diplomatic resources that might produce soft power for a country. Public opinion polls can quantify changes in a countrys attractiveness over time. Nor is hard power as easy to quantify as Hoagland seems to believe. The apparent precision of the measurement of hard power resources is often spurious and might be called the concrete fallacythe notion that the only important resources are those that can be dropped on your foot (or on a city). Thats a mistake. The United States had far more measurable military resources than North Vietnam, but it nonetheless lost the Vietnam War. Whether soft power produces behavior that we want will depend on the context and the skills with which the resources are converted into outcomes. Europe Counts Too Much on Soft Power and the United States Too Much on Hard Power True. Robert Kagans clever phrase that Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus is an overstatement, but it contains a core of truth. Europe has successfully used the attraction of its successful political and economic integration to obtain outcomes it wants, and the United States has often acted as though its military preeminence can solve all problems. But it is a mistake to rely on hard or soft power alone. The ability to combine them effectively might be termed smart power. During the Cold War, the West used hard power to deter Soviet aggression, while it also used soft power to erode faith in Communism behind the iron curtain. That was smart power. To be smart today, Europe should invest more in its hard-power resources, and the United States should pay more attention to its soft power. The Bush Administration Neglects Americas Soft Power More true in the first term than the second. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked about soft power in 2003, he replied I dont know what it means. The administration and the country paid a high price for that ignorance. Fortunately, in Bushs second term, with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes at the State Department and Rumsfelds reputation dented by the kind of failures the private sector would never tolerate, the second term team has shown an increased concern about Americas soft power. The president has stressed values in foreign policy and has increased the budget for public diplomacy. Some Goals Can Only Be Achieved by Hard Power No Doubt. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Ils penchant for Hollywood movies is unlikely to affect his decision on developing nuclear weapons. Hard power just might dissuade him, particularly if China agreed to economic sanctions. Nor will soft power be sufficient to stop the Iranian nuclear program, though the legitimacy of the administrations current multilateral approach may help to recruit other countries to a coalition that isolates Iran. And soft power got nowhere in luring the Taliban away from al Qaeda in the 1990s. It took American military might to do that. But other goals, such as the promotion of democracy and human rights are better achieved by soft power. Coercive democratization has its limitsas the United States has (re)discovered in Iraq. Military Resources Produce Only Hard Power No. The mention of hard power immediately conjures up images of tanks, fighters, and missiles. But military prowess and competence can sometimes create soft power. Dictators such as Hitler and Stalin cultivated myths of invincibility and inevitability to structure expectations and attract others to join their cause. As Osama bin Laden has said, people are attracted to a strong horse rather than a weak horse. A well-run military can be a source of admiration. The impressive job of the U.S. military in providing humanitarian relief after the

Indian Ocean tsunami and the South Asian earthquake in 2005 helped restore the attractiveness of the United States. Military-to-military cooperation and training programs, for example, can establish transnational networks that enhance a countrys soft power. Of course, misuse of military resources can also undercut soft power. The Soviets had a great deal of soft power in the years after World War II, but they destroyed it by the way they used their hard power against Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Brutality and indifference to just war principles of discrimination and proportionality can also destroy legitimacy. The efficiency of the initial U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003 created admiration in the eyes of some foreigners, but that soft power was undercut by the subsequent inefficiency of the occupation and the scenes of mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Soft Power Is Difficult to Use. Partly true. Governments can control and change foreign policies. They can spend money on public diplomacy, broadcasting, and exchange programs. They can promote, but not control popular culture. In that sense, one of the key resources that produce soft power is largely independent of government control. That is why the Council on Foreign Relations recently suggested the formation of a Corporation for Public Diplomacymodeled on the U.S. Corporation for Public Broadcastingto engage wider participation among private groups and individuals (who are often unwilling to be part of official government productions). Soft Power Is Irrelevant to the Current Terrorist Threat False. There is a small likelihood that the West will ever attract such people as Mohammed Atta or Osama bin Laden. We need hard power to deal with people like them. But the current terrorist threat is not Samuel Huntingtons clash of civilizations. It is a civil war within Islam between a majority of moderates and a small minority who want to coerce others into an extremist and oversimplified version of their religion. The United States cannot win unless the moderates win. We cannot win unless the number of people the extremists are recruiting is lower than the number we are killing and deterring. Rumsfeld himself asked in a 2003 memo: Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us? That equation will be very hard to balance without a strategy to win hearts and minds. Soft power is more relevant than ever.

Soft Power
Rising Powers
by David Kampf | on March 10th, 2009 | 5 comments

When assessing the worlds rising powers, we often focus on the most evident forms of strength military, economic and diplomatic. But, does a countrys soft power impact the global balance of power? The term soft power was coined by Joseph S. Nye Jr., a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School (and rumored new United States Ambassador to Japan). Power is the ability to influence the actions of others and soft power is the power of attraction (as opposed to coercion or payment). Culture, moral and social values and legitimate policies provide countries with authority. A phrase popular in the new Obama administration is smart power, the balance of hard and soft capabilities. Following the rise of anti-Americanism and disproportionate use of hard power, one might expect the soft power of the United States to be at an all-time low. Apparently not in Asia. A recent survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs surprisingly found that the United States is the regions undisputed soft-power leader. Thomas Wright from the Chicago Council commented that the center of gravity in international politics is moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The United States is the leading source of soft power in Asia. Despite Chinas rise, the US outpolled the emerging giant in every country surveyed. The United States ranks first in terms of overall soft power in China, Japan, and South Korea, and second (next to Japan) in Indonesia and Vietnam. All countries rank the United States above China in soft power.

(And the study was completed before Barack Obama was elected president, so any increase in popularity following the voting was not detected.) Of course different forms of power often go hand-in-hand. Economic resources buy military muscle and people are attracted to success. So, is soft power relevant when measuring global dominance? The debate continues