Indonesia and Ukraine Resolution
Stated that free and active foreign policy did not mean being neutral, because neutrality in geopolitics did not contribute to world peace.
Indonesia's political stance on the United Nations resolution has again been thrown into the spotlight, this time regarding its support of the resolution ratified at the 11th emergency session of the UN General Assembly on March 2, 2022.
The ES 11/1 resolution was overwhelmingly agreed upon, with 141 (including Indonesia) of 193 UN member states in favor of it. Five states (Russia, Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea and Syria) opposed and 35 states abstained (among them China, South Africa, Algeria, Laos and Vietnam). The emergency session was convened after Russia vetoed a draft resolution put forward in the earlier UN Security Council session on Feb. 26 deploring the invasion and calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.
Critics have said that Indonesia should have opposed the resolution, or at least abstained. They argue that Russia is simply exercising its right of pre-emptive self-defense against the US and its allies who are seeking to pull Ukraine into NATO. Russia sees it as threatening its national security.
Do they understand the procedures, mechanisms and dynamics of the UN convening session as well as the message of the UN Charter?
A Facebook account carried a posting (10/3/2022), saying "Vladimir Putin paham gobloknya diplomat Indonesia di PBB” (Vladimir Putin is aware of the stupidity of Indonesian diplomats at the UN). The poster thought Indonesia had taken the stance out of Indonesian diplomats’ lack of competence in handling Indonesia’s free and active foreign policy, ignorance about geopolitics and geostrategy, loss in orientation over and ineptness of the state’s guidelines and principles of free and active policy.
The question is whether the critics have read the textual narrative and grasped the content of the resolution. Do they understand the procedures, mechanisms and dynamics of the UN convening session as well as the message of the UN Charter?
ES 11/1 resolution
The essence of ES 11/1 resolution lies in the operative paragraphs (OP) 1 and 2. OP 1 is the affirmation of the UN member states’ commitment to sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within internationally recognized boundaries. OP 2 carries the statement that they deeply deplore Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
The other articles call for Russia to refrain from using threats or use of force against UN member states and withdraw unconditionally from the territory of Ukraine.
The two OPs clearly reflect the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. In this respect, Russia is considered to have violated Article 2 Paragraph 4, “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations". Any UN member, including Indonesia, will certainly take arms against any military aggression to their territories.
That Russia declares it a right to self-defense as pre-emptive actions before it is too late (deterrence to Ukraine’s anticipated plan to join NATO), cannot be justified. The right to self-defense by one country can only be exercised if military aggression threats from another turn into actions.
One example is Kuwait's self-defense efforts when it was invaded by Iraq on 2 Aug. 1990, which led to the First Gulf War. Kuwait brought the case to the UN in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. On 29 Nov. 1990, the UN Security Council unanimously, including its five permanent members, passed Resolution 678, which mandated the use of all necessary means, including military forces, against the invader. The UN Security Council formed a coalition force, led by the US, to expel Iraqi troops and re-establish Kuwait's sovereignty.
As in the case of the Russian offensive in Ukraine, on 28 Oct. 1983, the United States vetoed the UN Security Council resolution that strongly condemned the country's invasion of Grenada, which was considered a flagrant violation of international law. On 3 Nov. 1983, the UN General Assembly passed resolution 38/7 regarding the US invasion of Grenada.
Also read:
> Russia-Ukraine: Security Dilemma
> ‘Quo Vadis’ Russia-Ukraine War
The resolution had also used the same narrative as that regarding Ukraine, specifically under Article 2 Paragraph 4, which deplored the US military forces’ intervention against a small sovereign country with a population of fewer than 100,000 people. Resolution 38/7 was passed with 108 countries in favor of it (including US’ Western allies and Indonesia), nine countries against (including US, Israel and El Salvador), and 27 abstentions (including the United Kingdom, Japan, West Germany and Canada). The US ignored the UN resolution and continued its intervention until the fall of the military junta of Hudson Austin.
It shows that the majority of UN member states, regardless of their political interests, will support a resolution against any military invasion or intervention on a sovereign state.
Do the critics of Indonesia's political stance not read history? They probably do not realize that the choice of narrative terms plays a crucial role at a UN deliberation session and often provokes long and rambling debates. The use of "deplore" instead of "condemn" was agreed as a form of compromise in using a subtler term, as also used in the UN Security Council’s resolution in the case of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
It should be understood that the resolutions ratified by the UN General Assembly, especially by international organizations, such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (IOC), are non-binding but more of a moral force. The only UN resolution to have coercive and binding power is the one administered by the UN Security Council, even then with a number of conditions. The formation of a coalition force to expel Iraq from Kuwait, for example, despite binding all countries, only consisted of a number of countries, among them the US and its allies.
Free and active
Former vice president Mohammad Hatta in his speech titled “Mendayung Di Antara Dua Karang” (paddling between two atolls) on 2 Sept. 1948, stated that free and active foreign policy did not mean being neutral, because neutrality in geopolitics did not contribute to world peace. It means that in not taking sides with any of the power blocs, Indonesia must be active in participating to create world peace and prosperity.
As former president Megawati Soekarnoputri once stated, being free and active does not mean taking a neutral stance and ending up a spectator to global conflicts. "Taking a free stance doesn't mean being idle, nor does it mean “hands off”, nor does it mean being defensive or apologetic. We are active and decisive by principles, … active in fighting to eradicate oppression to any nation.” (rri.co.id, 11/1/2020).
Being neutral is not taking sides in military conflicts (such an approach is taken by Costa Rica and Liechtenstein, which have no armed forces) and avoiding the risk of being attacked by the opposing sides.
In the context of the United Nations, being neutral is often reflected in voting for abstentions. Switzerland has the oldest political neutrality (military) dated back to the Paris Treaty of 1815, finally becoming a full member of the United Nations on 10 Sept. 2002, in order to help promote peace. In the case of Ukraine, both Switzerland, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein voted in favor of the resolution.
Also read:
> Russian Invasion Marks another Dark Chapter in Europe
> Russia's Invasion of Ukraine on Global Economy
A hoax was circulating that Indonesia was included in the list of unfriendly countries, with Russia reportedly berating and even threatening with retaliation. Indonesia was said to be panicking about the consequences. In fact, in the official list issued by the Russian government (Kompas, 08/3/2022), Indonesia was not among the 48 unfriendly countries. Switzerland and Lischtenstein were.
These are the dynamics and the reality of the convening session at the United Nations, which are not “black and white”. So why should Indonesia panic? Support for the Ukrainian resolution condemning Russia and the Grenada resolution condemning the US, have shown Indonesia’s consistency in the implementation of its free and active foreign affairs as mandated by the 1945 Constitution.
Indonesia will remain a friend of Russia and the US. And is it not common in friendship to remind each other? Many might not know that Indonesia's stance toward an issue is decided through the Foreign Ministry’s consultation with relevant stakeholders, not by on-mission diplomats!
So, who really does not understand Indonesia’s free and active foreign policy and the dynamics of the UN’s multilateral session affairs? The misleading opinions on social media are deplorable. For Indonesian diplomats, it is important to remember the words of an anonymous, “Don't be scared to cut off jealous, hateful, disrespectful and disloyal people. You're better off without them". Stay focused on duty for the sake of the nation.
Dian Wirengjurit
Dian Wirengjurit, Principal Diplomats and Indonesian Ambassadors with Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York (1990-1994) and Geneva (1997-2001 and 2003-2007)
This article was translated by Musthofid.
