Indonesia’s Humanitarian Diplomacy under Jokowi’s Era:

Non-megaphone Diplomacy?

Firsty Chintya Laksmi Perbawani

Master Candidate of International Relations, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: Indonesia; Jokowi’s presidency, humanitarian diplomacy, non-megaphone diplomacy, Rakhine

humanitarian crisis.

Abstract: Jokowi’s presidential era brought a new path for Indonesia’s foreign policy, especially in terms of

diplomacy. The focus of Indonesia’s foreign policy that used to be security then shifted to one of

humanitarian since late 2016 when Indonesia began to send humanitarian aids to Rakhine, Myanmar. In

2017, humanitarian diplomacy became more intense, particularly in the Pacific region; this could be seen

from how Indonesia initiated a number of regional meetings with humanitarian agenda such as possible

counterterrorism means in Marawi, Philippines, and how Indonesia initiated the arrangement between

Bangladesh and Myanmar regarding the issue of repatriation; in which both were conducted under the

ASEAN framework. This paper intends to explain the factors behind the rise of Indonesia’s current

humanitarian diplomacy and the extent of which it affects Indonesia’s foreign policy. This paper finds that:

(1) humanitarian diplomacy becomes one way in order to end crisis and achieve regional stability; and (2)

through humanitarian diplomacy, Indonesia introduces a new way to approach crisis that is one by doing

direct actions without using force. By analyzing the concepts of megaphone and non-megaphone diplomacy,

this paper argues that the rise of humanitarian diplomacy is a means taken by Indonesia in shifting their

foreign policy approach to non-megaphone diplomacy.

1 INTRODUCTION

In this recent era, humanitarian diplomacy is

becoming one of the most chosen ways to counteract

crisis. It also happens for Indonesia, as stated on

Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs’ annual

speech, Retno Marsudi, that Indonesia will enhance

its peace and humanitarian diplomacy for a more

peaceful and stable world (Marsudi 2018). Uniquely,

Indonesia has been the only country accepted in

Myanmar to provide the humanitarian assistance to

the country, whilst the others are rejected due to the

escalation of the Rohingya’s ethnic cleansing crisis

in Rakhine state in late 2016.

Indonesia was praised by the international

community with how huge their effort to maintain

engaging in term of humanitarian assistance; instead

of using megaphone diplomacy, Indonesia always

prioritizes the non-megaphone diplomacy to look

after the crisis. President Joko (Jokowi) Widodo got

lots of thumbs up for using this way instead in his

current foreign policy, but his potential rivals and

potential leading political opponents rate this as part

of President Jokowi’s strategy to boost his own

image owing to the upcoming president election in

2019 (Jegho 2017).

However, the uniqueness of this shifting

deserves further research. Quoting from the

legitimate site of Indonesian Ministry of Foreign

Affairs:

“Indonesia's diplomatic machinery has and will

continue to work without megaphone diplomacy. The

constructive approach is prioritized so that the

humanitarian aspect can be handled immediately

and a long-term plan can be devised sustainably”

(Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016).

By that statement, it specifically proven on how

Indonesia in shifting their foreign policy approach to

non-megaphone diplomacy, undoubtedly possible to

tackle the humanitarian crisis by using this kind of

“soft” and “quiet” through humanitarian diplomacy.

According to Phillipe Regnier, humanitarian

diplomacy refers to any policies and practices led by

national and international agencies inside

humanitarian aid work framework. But, it does not

mean that this term is limited only for humanitarian

250

Perbawani, F.

Indonesia’s Humanitarian Diplomacy under Jokowi’s Era: Non-megaphone Diplomacy?.

DOI: 10.5220/0010275700002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 250-257

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

organization, because it also covers the national co-

operation agencies and ministries (foreign affairs,

defense, development, civil protection) that

comprising humanitarian aid departments to respond

to domestic or international emergencies (Regnier

2011, p.1212). Humanitarian diplomacy could

provide a state’s international reputation with a way

of expressing important qualities in the name of

human emotions, such as the empathy and solidarity

(O’Hagan 2017). Not only increasing a state’s

international reputation, but also able to enhance the

national interest based on building relationship of

trust and cooperation with another countries or

actors (O’Hagan 2017). So, what are the truly

backgrounds behind Indonesia choices to make the

rise of this diplomacy under President Jokowi’s era?

2 METHODS

This research uses qualitative data analysis

techniques, where the researcher adjusted to the data

and the content of the keywords. The researcher uses

three stages of qualitative data analysis. First, data

reduction; where there are the process of choosing

and riveting the data where it becomes a form of

analysis that already sharpened and classified. The

researcher will be organizing the data as so the

conclusion can be concluded at the end. Second,

data presentation; where there is the process of

compiling information that can be forms as narrative

text, and certain charts. Third, the conclusion; where

there is the process for drawing an explanatory

pattern, until making the proposition plot which able

to answer the research problem formulas. Here is the

design study of this research:

As what LeCompte & Schensul (1999) has said

that qualitative data analysis as the process a

researcher uses to reduce data to story and its

interpretation (Kawulich 2015, p.97), the researcher

will collect the data as many as the researcher can,

then will make the story and interpretation

afterwards. More than that, the previous qualitative

researchers have shared various strategies to analyze

qualitative data. Begin with looking at the

theoretical framework as the theoretical can provide

the lens through which the data are viewed and helps

the researcher to situate the results in the theory,

which helps to facilitate the understanding of the

data within that theoretical perspective (Kawulich

2015, p.100).

2.1 The Emerging Concept of

Humanitarian Diplomacy and Its

Debates

Firstly, the researcher will explore the theoretical

framework by looking how the relevant debates of

previous literature occurred. In general, let’s talk

about the rise of global diplomatic activity in this

century where inviting new areas, like access to

water, culture, the environment, until knowledge;

not only talking about classic national diplomacy.

But, we should underlined that humanitarian

diplomacy is an emerging term from conventional

diplomacy, alongside to manage the international

relations through negotiation, it is also focuses on

managing support for operations; programs; and

building the partnership with another actors as long

as needed to achieve the humanitarian objectives

(Regnier 2011, p.1218). It correlates with what

Indonesia did to Rohingya Muslim under Jokowi’s

presidential era, later to be explained.

The researcher will go back on the birthing of

humanitarian diplomacy that basically was devoted

in 2007 by the rising of some humanitarian agencies,

like International Committee of the Red Cross

(ICRC), which is keen to emphasize its universality

and giving a space for their own respective

governments; followed by International Federation

of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) in

2010, which established a new division in charge of

promoting humanitarian diplomacy (Regnier 2011,

p.1212). Unfortunately, the debate is still happens.

As doing the humanitarian diplomacy means that the

country who’s under crisis should accept foreign

actors for delivering their humanitarian assistance.

In that case, there is an overlapping understanding

between doing humanitarian diplomacy and

intervention. So, “humanitarian intervention”

happens when there’s a use of force across state

borders by an international governmental

organization, a group of states, or a single state

aimed at preventing or ending widespread and

Theoritical Framework

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Indonesia’s Humanitarian Diplomacy under Jokowi’s Era: Non-megaphone Diplomacy?

251

systemic violations of the fundamental human rights

of individuals other than its own citizens, without

the full and valid consent of the state within whose

territory force is applied (Amneus 2012, p.243).

Then, what is the legal basis of humanitarian

diplomacy? As the turmoil of disagreement ensued

on how humanitarian diplomacy could overlap with

intervention, the debate over the limitations of

humanitarian intervention continued until September

15, 2005 at the World Summit in New York. The

United Nations (UN) Security Council decided to

make a global commitment with later called as

Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which means

equally responsible for refusing any mass atrocity

crime, such as genocide, war crimes, ethnic

cleansing, and crimes against humanity (Bellamy

2017, p.617). This can be the reason why Indonesia

condemns the humanitarian crisis in Rakhine,

because it is one attempt to do ethnic cleansing of

Rohingya Muslim.

2.2 Humanitarian Diplomacy and

Foreign Policy

Before specifically talking about humanitarian

diplomacy and foreign policy, let’s talk about

diplomacy in general. There are differences between

them:

“Diplomacy is often confused with foreign policy, of

which it is in fact an instrument. A country’s foreign

policy defines the objectives that diplomacy carries

out, at times in conjunction with other means such

as military action or economic pressure. It is a

policy of interests; in the eyes of some States at

least, foreign policy also implies shouldering

responsibility at the global level. Diplomacy has

several functions, such as representing the State and

conducting negotiations in order to reach

agreements and draw up rules for the international

system. It is a mode of communication, one of whose

chief attributes is to avert or regulate disputes in a

politically fragmented international system: it thus

serves to prevent conflicts and restore peace”

(Regnier 2011, p.1214).

As stated above showed that diplomacy is an

instrument to achieve or carry out a country’s

foreign policy. Furthermore, to what extent

humanitarian diplomacy can affect the foreign

policy? It can be seen through the writings of

(Macrae & Leader 2000, pp.2–4) that explains that

there is the existence of policy coherence or also

referred to as new humanitarianism in post-Cold

War, where humanitarian diplomacy can influence

the foreign policy because: (1) it is increasing focus

on human security that could extent the influential

geopolitical context, where influencing on the

country’s way to react including through the cross-

border assistance; (2) it is allowing new paradigm to

born, where the countries and agencies vying to give

humanitarian aid; and (3) it is extending the

domestic public policy, where country will face pro

and cons respond toward this humanitarian

diplomacy. Those reasons made a further decision,

should a humanitarian diplomacy be done in loud or

quiet way. Loud diplomacy or often called as

megaphone diplomacy is the product of domestic

political needs where politicians feel the need for

their own domestic political purposes to talk toughly

and often roughly even when it will damage their

longer term aims. Mostly, the diplomat on the

ground that has to attempt to repair the damage done

by resorting to megaphone diplomacy with using a

direct force (Roberts 2009, p.10). Then, what is non-

megaphone diplomacy? This is sort of the polar

opposite of megaphone diplomacy; this term is used

when negotiation between countries or parties not

aiming to force the other party to followed what we

had desired them. That is why non-megaphone

diplomacy also described as soft and quiet

diplomacy. Even farther, the aim for this non-

megaphone diplomacy is to create conditions to

make the parties feel comfortable to act, by letting

the parties (the one who’s in crisis) to evaluate their

positions and interests. By using this diplomacy

means that we consider giving an independent and

impartial advice (Collins & Packer 2016, p.10).

Next, the method continued by exploring more on

the results, discussions, and ended with the overall

conclusion.

3 RESULTS

To explain the data that have collected and

submitted, the results divided into two big parts,

there are (1) the nature of Indonesia’s foreign policy;

and (2) the shifting under Jokowi’s era: Indonesia’s

humanitarian diplomacy.

3.1 Part 1. The Nature of Indonesia’s

Foreign Policy

As a new state that got the independency on 1945,

Indonesia’s relationship with the international

community can’t be untied with their pattern of

leadership (presidency). The various resources and

very clear vision from the leader can be the

prominent reason for Indonesia’s ascent in regional

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

252

and global scope. As the vision of leaders was quite

related with their perspective with on nationalism

and independence, which in this way, appear to

backing up on how Indonesia reacts with

international community (Andika 2017, p.2).

Beside the leadership, the focal point of

Indonesia’s foreign policy since the early period is

their “bebas-aktif” or independent and active

doctrine. Indonesia stated to be untied and free from

any alliance or political blocks which exist in global

stage, at the same time, it also implies Indonesia’s

willingness to enhance its role in international

community. In terms of bebas or independent;

Indonesia has extremely respectful for the

sovereignty over the other states, which demands the

Indonesian government to not interfere other state’s

domestic political issues. As sovereignty has been

sensitive aspect of every state, if offending this

aspect could easily conflict within countries.

Indonesia perceives that every state has its own

national autonomy that should be mutually

respected. It thus also becomes one of main principle

in ASEAN where Indonesia also play their pivotal

role in it (Andika 2017, p.3). In terms of aktif or

active; Indonesia contributes to give its role in

regional and global. It can be seen on how Indonesia

sent abroad their humanitarian assistance and

military forces. By sending their humanitarian aid or

troops, Indonesia always seen this actions as “the

good effort with no intervention”. The researcher

agrees, because it strengthened by Indonesia’s

current Minister of Foreign Affairs, H.E Retno

Marsudi in previous seminar that the researcher

attended that, our face of diplomacy always employ

the face of peace or she called it “mudah diterima

dan membuat nyaman” or easy to accept and always

make feel comfortable. This dictum can be used as

benchmark that Indonesia will be easily accepted by

country that’s under the conflict; and highly

appreciated in the international sphere.

Moving back to the role of presidency in

Indonesian foreign policy, the researcher will be

explaining the details since the former president.

Quoting from (Mulyana 2018), that Indonesia has

been blessed by having figures that able to shape the

country’s foreign policy, in their respective ways. It

giving us various challenges and opportunity, the

leader, in this case president; navigated the country

with diverse foreign policy instruments. Along the

way, they also giving the doctrinal zeal of policy and

issued a series of directives, that able to form

country’s foreign policy practices and tradition

(Mulyana 2018).

Starting with President Soekarno (1945-1967),

who was an apt reader for uplifting the spirit of

Indonesian independency. In that time, he saw how

cruel regional and global circumstances are which

can lead into war in the Pacific. From that reasons,

Soekarno obtained to cope that out and come up

with number of foreign policy which able to evolve

the antagonism between the West and East blocs.

Soekarno introduced the Non-Aligned Movement

(NAM), the movement for not picking side from two

big blocs. His innovations could let a new

architecture in global politics (Mulyana 2018).

Next, President Soeharto (1967-1998) whose

later stage was more involved in foreign affairs.

Starting with the founding of ASEAN in his early

year, Soeharto’s affinity with diplomacy was

striking the peak when Indonesia was chairing the

NAM in 1992-1995. Indonesia could build a

collective view and responses among the NAM

member countries; and also make sure to clearly

stated Indonesia’s neutrality that still valid and

relevant even until when the Cold War was coming

to an end. For instance, the North-South dialogue

and mission to Sarajevo to help find a solution to the

conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina were led under

Soeharto’s presidency (Mulyana 2018).

Since the fall of President Soeharto in 1998, the

next presidency was led by President B.J. Habibie

(1998-1999) that quite short in period. In this early

stage, Indonesia started to focus on its image at

home and abroad (Ranty 2016). Indonesia’s

diplomacy under Habibie’s presidency was primarily

directed at finding the solution for East Timor

situation, where later the human right laying as

strong foundation for Indonesia’s diplomacy. Since

this era, despite gaining greater capacity in human

rights’ promotion and protection at home; Indonesia

also paved the way to gather more human rights

diplomacy in the global sphere (Mulyana 2018).

The next presidency was led by Presiden

Abdurrahman Wahid or well-known as Gusdur

(1999-2001). Gusdur led Indonesian foreign policy

through a series of bilateral and multilateral

initiatives. It proven by several summits that

Indonesia joined, such as South Summit G77 in

Havana; the Millennium Summit in New York; until

the initiative to found Southwest Pacific Dialogue,

which still portrays Indonesia in the Southwest

Pacific region until today (Mulyana 2018). From his

presidency, we could see how intense Indonesia to

show up in various summits and dialogues where it

can boost up Indonesia’s relations and cooperation

with many countries.

Indonesia’s Humanitarian Diplomacy under Jokowi’s Era: Non-megaphone Diplomacy?

253

As the country initially projected its image as

free and democratic, a progressive economy, and the

home of world’s Muslim population; the next

presidency was President Megawati Soekarno Putri

(2001-2004) which trying to highlight the

regionalism’s importance. It showed by Indonesian

serving as the ASEAN Chair in 2003, which led to

the endorsement of Bali Concord II. This was a

historic achievement which rises up the regional

integration within ASEAN countries. President

Megawati also revived the spirit of the Bandung

Asia-Africa Conference of 995 by launched an

initiative for Asian-African sub-regional cooperation

(Mulyana 2018). In her presidency, Indonesia also

suffered with terrorism attacks of Bali Bombing I in

2002, followed by the Indian Ocean Tsunami and

earthquake in 2004. These events stymied

Indonesia’s branding effort as free and democratic

country. However, it is precisely soaked up

Indonesian diplomacy through public diplomacy and

summit diplomacy during 2002-2004 to gain back

the trust and reputation of Indonesia as an emerging

power in regional and global scope (Ranty 2016).

In following years, the presidency led by

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or well-

known as President SBY (2004-2014). Under his

presidency, President SBY took the lead of

Indonesian diplomacy at the bilateral as well as

multilateral levels. Within a decade, his presidency

was loaded with substantive and intellectual

leadership to invest in the building of a regional and

global architecture of peace and stability. For

instance, the use of diplomacy through the

participation in ASEAN, APEC and G20 that

explore the more ideas and policies of sustainable

growth with equity (Mulyana 2018). Moreover,

President SBY established thousand friends - zero

enemies policy, where later strengthen by his

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marty Natalegawa to

emphasized the every single one of dynamic

situation could be managed by linked it into three

aspects; security, common interest, and partnership

(Andika 2017, p.4).

3.2 Part 2: The Shifting under

Jokowi’s Era: Indonesia’s

Humanitarian Diplomacy.

The following presidency was led by President Joko

Widodo (2014-2019). This presidency represents a

new model of “face from village” president, unlike

his six predecessors who come up from military or

political backgrounds. As the former of Surakarta

mayor, Jokowi able to build consensus for his

policies, winning over the skeptical constituents and

bureaucrats. In his early stage, Jokowi sees himself

primarily as a domestic reformer, not an

international statesman. That is why he prefers to

rely upon some of Indonesia’s strongest minds in

foreign affairs to provide him with a ready-made

vision of Indonesia’s place in region and

international relations. Later, the statement lists

towards his foreign policy’s priorities, such as (1)

promoting Indonesia’s identity as an archipelagic

state; (2) enhancing the global role of middle power

diplomacy; (3) expanding engagement in the Indo-

Pacific region; (4) further reform of the foreign

ministry to emphasize economic diplomacy

(Connelly 2014, pp.4–6).

The researcher argues that in Jokowi’s era,

Indonesia has been a key driver of regional

integration process in Southeast Asia and Pacific

region. Indonesia’s foreign policy has taken a more

nationalistic twist, raising concern amongst

neighbors and extra-regional partners of a change.

For instance, in Jakarta’s foreign policy and a

deflection from its regional leadership role in

ASEAN (European Institue of Asian Studies 2016,

p.1). Like what have stated above that, Indonesia’s

current foreign policy is about selling a good and

peace face through humanitarian diplomacy.

3.3 The Evidences: Actual Actions of

Indonesia’s Humanitarian

Diplomacy

As selling their humanitarian diplomacy, the next

findings can be shown by how Indonesia giving

humanitarian assistance to another country and

agencies. The kind of humanitarian diplomacy that

Indonesia did was totally no use of force; always

respect their obligation to facilitate and protect

humanitarian assistance; and prevent or denounce

any unlawful actions that might seriously harm the

civilian population. Indonesia always practicing the

humanitarian diplomacy with only based on the legal

framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

and human rights law. Also, the foundations for the

practice of humanitarian diplomacy lie in IHL as set

out in the Geneva Conventions 1961 and their

additional protocols (Regnier 2011, pp.1233–4).

The first and biggest humanitarian diplomacy

was for people of Rakhine State, Myanmar including

Rohingyas. The crisis started in 2016 when the

Myanmar government that led by Aung San Suu Kyi

cannot solve the acute problem that already rooted

since the British Colonial times, where there is a

political tug of war between the military and the

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

254

civil society in Myanmar. In fact, Myanmar is still

learning from its transition into democracy country.

But, this power-sharing agreement between Aung

San Suu Kyi and military just brought another

escalation to the crisis. Accordingly, they had

chosen to side with the majority Buddhists rather

than defending or protecting the minority group like

Rohingya Muslims and Karen Christians (Jegho

2017). Rohingya, the largest minority group has

been facing genocide for many years. All the

international organizations and human rights

activists put an eye on this hatred, including the

international Muslim communities and Indonesia, as

the largest Muslim population. They called this as

humanitarian crisis, ethnic cleansing, and also

genocide. The focal reason of this violence was

totally based by nationalism-fueled racism tendency;

where Myanmar always excluded Rohingya as part

of their citizen, effectively rendering them to be

stateless.

President Jokowi conducted that Indonesia will

take part on giving humanitarian aid to Rakhine

State, Myanmar. The first aid was sending about 10

containers filled with instant noodle, wheat flour,

baby food, and sarongs on December 29, 2016. The

shipping of the humanitarian aid was follow-up of

the communications between governments of

Indonesia and Myanmar on the importance of

humanitarian aid access to Rakhine State. As

Indonesia keeps the principle of non-megaphone

diplomacy, it becomes the reasons why Indonesia

was the only one to get access giving aid to the

Rakhine State. Moreover, Retno Marsudi asserted

the bilaterally and through ASEAN, Indonesia has a

high commitment for assisting in inclusive

development in Myanmar, in creating peace,

stability and development in Rakhine State (Ministry

of Foreign Affairs 2016). The aid continued by the

construction on the Indonesian Hospital in Mrauk U,

the city in Rakhine State about 70 kilometers north

of Sittwe on the Bay of Bengal, as the driving force

behind the ASEAN Humanitarian Assistance in

Rakhine State (Views 2017).

As the result of this humanitarian crisis are

thousands of refugees fleeing to Bangladesh. So, the

next humanitarian assistance taken place in

Bangladesh. In August 2017, Indonesia conducted

an arrangement of meeting between Myanmar and

Bangladesh to counter the huge influx of refugees.

Later in early 2018, President Jokowi visited

Rohingya refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar. Bangladeshi

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abul Hassan Mahmood

Ali welcomed about 34 tons of aid for Rohingya

refugees from Indonesia. The aids contain of rice,

instant meals, family kits, tents, water tanks and

blankets. The humanitarian diplomacy still

remaining as Indonesia-Bangladesh keep their

engagement to help the Rohingyas victim through a

bilateral meeting in Credential Hall, Bangabhan

Presidential Palace on January 27, 2018 (Marsudi

2018).

The third evidence can be seen on Indonesia’s

position on Palestine. At the end of 2017, the world

was shocked by an attempt to alter the international

status quo on Jerusalem, where just worsen the

situation while there is still ongoing humanitarian

crisis. Indonesia’s diplomacy shall continue to strive

for Palestine for humanity and for justice; no only in

the form of political support, but Indonesia also

strengthen the cooperation in water desalination and

health (Marsudi 2018).

The next, is with Philippines. As the fighting in

Mindanao and extreme weather events are making a

huge humanitarian crisis in the Philippines,

Indonesia. As there is terrorism attack, Battle of

Marawi that lasts from May 23, 2017 till October 23,

2017 brought broader threat not only for Philippines

but ASEAN region. The attack was reportedly

claimed by ISIS, the biggest cross-border terrorist

group. The previous bombing attack in Davao

happened on September 2, 2016 which causing at

least 70 injuries and 14 deaths. In this time, militant

Islamic group Abu Sayyaf claimed the bombing.

This urges to counter because terrorism issue is

threatening the human right (Tan 2018). Not only

about the terrorism, but also the extreme weather in

Mindanao that struck by typhoons had created a

complex crisis. Indonesia always uses their non-

megaphone diplomacy through sending

humanitarian aid; improving education by building

Islamic Schools in Southern Philippines; until

discussing about counterterrorism agenda with

Malaysia too through sharing the information to stop

the flow of terrorist (Tan 2018).

4 DISCUSSION

This study explored at least there are two main

points that can be analyzes. The first point is

humanitarian diplomacy becomes one way in order

to end crisis and achieve regional stability. The

previous literature said that humanitarian diplomacy

is an emerging form of traditional diplomacy. In this

recent era, Jokowi’s foreign policy relies on using

soft diplomacy with the form of non-megaphone

humanitarian diplomacy to end crisis. Jokowi

remains firmly holding the focal principle of bebas-

Indonesia’s Humanitarian Diplomacy under Jokowi’s Era: Non-megaphone Diplomacy?

255

aktif politics; and strengthening relations with its

regional axis, especially in the ASEAN region.

The researcher quoting one of researcher’s

professors said in her lecturing that the significance

of Indonesia’s role in humanitarianism also rely on

some vital point: (1) ideal, based on Pancasila to

carry out many humanitarian actions; (2)

constitution, based on Undang-Undang Dasar 1945

which promotes a world peace; (3) operations, based

on Indonesia’s foreign policy and the presidency or

way of current leadership. The orientation of

humanitarian diplomacy will depend on what issues

have the highest urgency and also the presidency as

well. The second point is through humanitarian

diplomacy, Indonesia introduces a new way to

approach crisis that is one by doing direct actions

without using force. As what the data have said the

evidence that Indonesia selling their good and

friendly could be the plus point for their reputation.

For instance, being the only country which aid was

accepted in Rakhine State is a great achievement.

But, in general, humanitarian diplomacy also

faces challenges. The discussion was mentioned in

(Regnier 2011, p.1229) that many challenges for

contemporary humanitarian diplomacy related to

environment in which humanitarian actors operate

today, such as the challenge of: humanitarian access

in times of internal conflicts; the use of force to

protect civilians; engaging the private sectors;

interinstitutional coordination of emergency aid;

new information technologies; until building human

resources in the service of humanitarian diplomacy

(Regnier 2011, pp.1230–5). Those challenges could

be tackled by the broader research and discussion in

the future.

5 CONCLUSIONS

To sum up, it clearly proved that under Jokowi’s

Era, the rise of humanitarian diplomacy is a means

taken by Indonesia in shifting their foreign policy

approach to non-megaphone diplomacy. As

humanitarian diplomacy emerges into more complex

term, the global diplomatic activities are also rising.

Unlike his six predecessors who come up from

military or political backgrounds, Jokowi who’s

labelled as “face from village” president is more into

domestic reformer not an international statesman. At

the first, he left the foreign policy to his advisers. As

time goes by, the pattern of his foreign policy has

taken a more nationalistic twist, raising concern

amongst neighbors and extra-regional partners of a

change. The highlighted point is the use of non-

megaphone diplomacy is very common in each of

Indonesia’s diplomacy right now, not only in home

but also in regional and global arena. Indonesia is

selling his humanitarian diplomacy with the face of

kindness and friendly instead of pushing and using

loud diplomacy. This reason summed up how

Indonesia is easily accepted by another country and

agencies, as Indonesia also portrays its nature of

foreign policy as bebas-aktif and holding under the

ASEAN framework. It brought a new path and

opening a new path for Indonesia’s foreign policy in

the future.

REFERENCES

Amneus, D., 2012. Responsibility to Protect : Emerging

Rules on Humanitarian Intervention ? ´ US. Global

Society, 26(2).

Andika, M.T., 2017. An Analysis of Indonesia Foreign

Policy Under Jokowi’ s Pro-People An Analysis of

Indonesia Foreign Policy Under Jokowi ' s Pro-People

Diplomacy. Indonesian Perspective, 1, No.2(January

2016), pp.1–13.

Bellamy, A.J., 2017. The Responsibility to Protect and the

Problem of Military Intervention The Responsibility to

Protect and the problem of military intervention. ,

84(4), pp.615–639.

Collins, C. & Packer, J., 2016. Options and Techniques for

Quiet Diplomacy. Folke Bernadotte Academy.

Connelly, A.L., 2014. Indonesian foreign policy under

President Jokowi. , (October), pp.1–18.

European Institue of Asian Studies, 2016. A More Activist

Foreign Policy? Indonesia and ASEAN under Jokowi.,

Jegho, L., 2017. “Sarong Diplomacy” from Indonesia to

Rohingya in Myanmar. Global Indonesian Voices.

Kawulich, B., 2015. Qualitative Data Analysis

Techniques. , (January 2004).

Macrae, J. & Leader, N., 2000. The Politics of Coherence:

Humanitarianism and Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold

War Era. , 44(1), pp.1–6.

Marsudi, H.E.R.L.P., 2018. 2018 Annual Press Statement

Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic

Indonesia. , (January).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2016. Indonesia’s

Humanitarian Aid for the Rohingya/Rakhine State. ,

p.1. Available at:

https://www.kemlu.go.id/en/berita/Pages/indonesias-

humanitarian-aid-for-rohingya-rakhine-state.aspx

[Accessed June 28, 2018].

Mulyana, Y.G., 2018. The Indonesian Presidency and

Foreign Policy. The Diplomats. Available at:

https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/the-indonesian-

presidency-and-foreign-policy/ [Accessed July 6,

2018].

O’Hagan, J., 2017. The Challenge of Humanitarian

Diplomacy. Australian Institute of International

Affairs.

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

256

Ranty, G., 2016. Public Diplomacy in Indonesia and

Southeast Asia: Trends and Challenges. Available at:

https://placebrandobserver.com/public-diplomacy-

indonesia-southeast-asia-trends-challenges/ [Accessed

July 4, 2018].

Regnier, P., 2011. The emerging concept of humanitarian

diplomacy : identification of a community of practice

and prospects for international recognition. , 93(884),

pp.1211–1237.

Roberts, I., 2009. The Development of Modern Diplomacy

International Law Discussion Group. , pp.2–17.

Tan, S.S., 2018. Countering Terrorism in ASEAN After

Marawi: a Regional Role for the Military. Center for

Strategic and International Studies. Available at:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/pacnet-11-countering-

terrorism-asean-after-marawi-regional-role-military

[Accessed July 10, 2018].

Views, A., 2017. Indonesia’s New Humanitarian

Diplomacy. Asia Views. Available at:

https://asiaviews.net/indonesias-new-humanitarian-

diplomacy/ [Accessed July 9, 2018].

Indonesia’s Humanitarian Diplomacy under Jokowi’s Era: Non-megaphone Diplomacy?

257